Davis v. Ramen et al
Filing
114
ORDER Granting Defendants' 107 Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Surreply and Striking Surreply; ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 109 Motion to Strike Defendants' Motion to Strike and 110 Motion to File a Surreply signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 06/06/2011. (Flores, E)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
JAMES L. DAVIS,
10
CASE NO. 1:06-cv-01216-AWI-SMS PC
Plaintiff,
11
v.
12
RAMEN, et al.,
13
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S SURREPLY AND
STRIKING SURREPLY
(ECF Nos. 105, 107)
Defendants.
14
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
STRIKE AND MOTION TO FILE A
SURREPLY
15
/ (ECF No. 109, 110.)
16
17
Plaintiff James L. Davis (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
18
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on the
19
third amended complaint, filed August 21, 2008, against Defendants Raman, Rangel, Solis, and
20
Johnson for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment
21
rights. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on January 7, 2011, and an exhibit for their
22
statement of undisputed facts on January 11, 2011. (ECF Nos. 95, 97.) Plaintiff filed an opposition
23
on February 4, 2011. (ECF No. 99.) Defendants filed a reply and objections on February 24, 2011.
24
(ECF Nos. 102, 103.) Plaintiff filed a surreply on March 10, 2011. (ECF No. 105.) Defendants
25
filed a motion to strike Plaintiff’s surreply on March 18, 2011, and Plaintiff filed a motion to strike
26
Defendants’ reply on March 31, 2011. (ECF Nos. 107, 109.) Plaintiff filed a motion to file a
27
surreply on April 18, 2011. (ECF No. 110.)
28
The Local Rules provide for a motion, an opposition, and a reply. Neither the Local Rules
1
1
nor the Federal Rules provide the right to file a surreply, and the Court neither requested one nor
2
granted a request on the behalf of Plaintiff to file one. Defendant’s motion was deemed submitted
3
upon the filing of the reply. Local Rule 230(m). Once a motion is deemed submitted, no further
4
filings shall be entertained, absent permission from the court. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s
5
arguments in his motion to file a surreply and finds that a surreply is not necessary.
6
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
7
1.
8
Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s surreply, filed March 18, 2011, is
GRANTED;
9
2.
Plaintiff’s surreply, filed March 10, 2011, is STRICKEN from the record;
10
3.
Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendants’ motion to strike, filed March 31, 2011, is
11
DENIED; and
12
4.
Plaintiff’s motion to file a surreply, filed April 18, 2011, is DENIED.
13
14
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
16
Dated:
icido3
June 6, 2011
/s/ Sandra M. Snyder
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
