Robinson v. Williams et al

Filing 42

ORDER GRANTING 40 Motion to Strike 39 Supplement. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 8/1/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9

CHRISTOPHER KIRK ROBINSON,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

vs.
BRIAN WILLIAMS, et. al.
Defendants.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_______)

3:11-cv-00520-LRH (WGC)
ORDER

Before the court is Defendant’s Motion to Strike “Plaintiff’s Motion in Support to his
Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.” (Doc. # 40.)1
Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint on the basis that Plaintiff
failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. (Doc. # 32.) Plaintiff opposed the motion (Doc.
# 36) and Defendant filed a reply brief (Doc. # 37). After the close of briefing, Plaintiff filed a
document titled “Plaintiff’s Motion in Support to His Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss.” (Doc. # 39.) This document can be viewed as a response to Defendants’ reply brief.
Defendant moves to strike Plaintiff’s filing, arguing that it is not contemplated by the Local
Rules. (See Doc. # 40 at 2.)
Defendant is correct that Local Rule 7-2 only permits the filing of a motion, response,
and reply brief, unless otherwise ordered by the court. L.R. 7-2(a)-(c). Nothing in Rule 7-2
contemplates the filing of a response to a reply brief without leave of court. While Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(f) provides authority for the court to strike “redundant, immaterial,

27
28
1

Refers to court’s docket number.

1

impertinent, or scandalous matter[s]” from a pleading, it does not authorize the court to strike

2

material contained in other documents filed with the court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).

3

Nevertheless, courts have inherent powers to control their dockets, see Ready Transp., Inc.

4

v. AAR Mfg, Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404 (citations omitted), and to “achieve the orderly and

5

expeditious disposition of cases.” Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991). “This

6

includes the power to strike items from the docket as a sanction for litigation conduct.” Ready,

7

627 F.3d at 404 (citations omitted).

8

Plaintiff’s filing (Doc. # 39) is not contemplated by the Local Rules, and he did not seek

9

leave of court prior to its filing; therefore, the court exercises its inherent authority to strike the

10

document. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion (Doc. # 40) is GRANTED.

11
12
13
14

DATED: August 1, 2012.

15
WILLIAM G. COBB
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2