Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-03700/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-03700-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JACOB S. SILVERMAN, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

IVERS, et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 17-03700 BLF (PR)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 

SUR-REPLY

 (Docket No. 103) 

Plaintiff, a California inmate, filed the instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 against staff at the Humboldt County Correctional Facility (“HCCF”), 

for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. The Court found the second amended 

complaint stated cognizable claims and ordered the matter served on Defendants. (Docket 

No. 18.) Defendants filed a summary judgment motion. (Docket No. 86.) Plaintiff filed 

an opposition, (Docket No. 98, 99), and Defendants filed a reply on November 17, 2019, 

(Docket No. 102). The Court stated in its Order of Service that Defendants’ summary 

judgment “shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due.” (Docket No. 

18 at 6.) Accordingly, the matter was submitted upon the filing of Defendants’ reply.

Case 5:17-cv-03700-BLF Document 104 Filed 12/18/19 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

Three weeks later on December 8, 2019,1 Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of 

time “to file a reply to Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s 

Motion for Summary Judgment.” (Docket No. 103.) In other words, Plaintiff seeks to file 

a sur-reply.

The Local Rules provide that once a reply is filed, “no additional memoranda, 

papers or letters may be filed without prior Court approval” except to file an objection to 

new evidence submitted in the reply or to bring to the Court’s attention a relevant judicial 

opinion published after the date the opposition or reply was filed. Civil L.R. 7-3(d)(1), (2).

Plaintiff’s makes no argument in his motion that he intends to file a sur-reply under either 

of these exceptions. Furthermore, the Local Rule 7-3(d) states that an objection to reply 

evidence must be filed and served not more than 10 days after the reply was filed.2

Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file a sur-reply was filed well after the time to 

do so had expired. Accordingly, the motion for an extension of time to file a sur-reply is 

DENIED as untimely and for lack of merit.

This order terminates Docket No. 103. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _December 18, 2019_ ________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN 

United States District Judge 

Order Denying M. for EOT to file Sur-reply 

P:\PRO-SE\BLF\CR.17\03700Silverman_deny.eot.surreply.docx 

1

 December 8, 2019 is the date of Plaintiff’s signature on the motion for extension of time.

(Docket No. 103 at 1.) 

2

 Local Rule 7-3(d)(1) states the objection must be filed and served not more than 7 days 

after the reply was filed but may be extended by 3 days if the reply was not filed and 

served through the ECF system. Plaintiff is pro se and not subject to the ECF filing 

requirements and is therefore entitled to the additional 3 days.

Case 5:17-cv-03700-BLF Document 104 Filed 12/18/19 Page 2 of 2