Anzures v. United States of America

Filing 23

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Laura Fashing granting 21 Motion for Leave to File Surreply. (cda)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff/Respondent,
vs.

No. 1:10-CR-003461-001 JH
No. 1:16-CV-00697 JH/LF

JOHN ANZURES,
Defendant/Petitioner.

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on United States’ Motion for Leave to File
Surreply filed April 5, 2017. Doc. 59.1 Petitioner John Anzures filed a response to the motion
on April 6, 2017. Doc. 60. The United States has not filed a reply, and none is necessary. The
Court, having reviewed the motion and response, and the relevant law, finds that the motion is well
taken and will be GRANTED.
Local Civil Rule 7.4(b) states that the filing of a surreply requires leave of court. The
decision to grant the filing of a surreply is within the court’s sound discretion. Beaird v. Seagate
Tech., Inc., 145 F.3d 1159, 1164 (10th Cir. 1998). When a moving party raises new material or
new arguments in a reply, the Court has the option of either disregarding the new material and
arguments, or allowing the nonmoving party to file a surreply. See Doebele v. Sprint/United
Management Co., 342 F.3d 1117, 1139 n.13 (10th Cir. 2003). “Generally, the nonmoving party
should be given an opportunity to respond to new material raised for the first time in the movant’s
reply.” Green v. New Mexico, 420 F.3d 1189, 1196 (10th Cir. 2005). Courts also may permit a
1

Citations to “Doc.” refer to the document number in the criminal case, CR 10-3461 JCH, unless
otherwise noted.

movant to file a response to a surreply. See Barreras v. Travelers Home and Martine Ins. Co.,
No. 12-cv-00354-KG-LF, Doc. 188 at 2 (D.N.M. Dec. 16, 2015) (unpublished).
The United States seeks leave to file a surreply to address a new argument raised by
Anzurez in his reply, and to address on-point case law that has developed since the United States’
initial response. Doc. 59 at 1. Anzurez opposes the motion, arguing that his reply to the
government’s answer to his petition made no new arguments, but simply challenged the arguments
raised by the government. Doc. 60 at 1–2. Nonetheless, Anzurez requests the opportunity to
respond to the surreply should the Court grant the United States’ motion. Id. at 3.
The Court finds that a surreply is appropriate in this case. Anzurez will have the
opportunity to respond to the surreply.
ITS IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the United States’s Motion for Leave to File
Surreply (Doc. 59) is GRANTED. The Court will consider the government’s surreply, which is
attached as the exhibit to its Motion for Leave to File Surreply. See Doc. 59-1. Anzurez will file
his optional response to the surreply no later than Friday, May 12, 2017. Anzurez’s response
shall not exceed five pages. No further filings will be permitted except under D.N.M.LR-Civ.
7.8.

_________________________
Laura Fashing
United States Magistrate Judge

2