Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-01452/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-01452-17/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Michael R. Warzek is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file a surreply. 

(ECF No. 74.) Plaintiff is advised that parties do not have the right to file surreplies and motions are 

deemed submitted when the time to reply has expired. Local Rule 230(l). 

The Court generally views motions for leave to file a surreply with disfavor. Hill v. England, 

No. CVF05869 REC TAG, 2005 WL 3031136, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2005) (citing Fedrick v. MercedesBenz USA, LLC, 366 F.Supp.2d 1190, 1197 (N.D. Ga. 2005)). However, district courts have the 

discretion to either permit or preclude a surreply. See U.S. ex rel. Meyer v. Horizon Health Corp., 565 

F.3d 1195, 1203 (9th Cir. 2009) (district court did not abuse discretion in refusing to permit 

“inequitable surreply”); JG v. Douglas County School Dist., 552 F.3d 786, 803 n. 14 (9th Cir. 2008) 

(district court did not abuse discretion in denying leave to file surreply where it did not consider new 

MICHAEL R. WARZEK,

 Plaintiff,

v.

O. ONEYEJE, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:17-cv-01452-AWI-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A 

SURREPLY

[ECF No. 74]

Case 1:17-cv-01452-AWI-SAB Document 75 Filed 02/14/20 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

evidence in reply); Provenz v. Miller, 102 F.3d 1478, 1483 (9th Cir. 1996) (new evidence in reply may 

not be considered without giving the non-movant an opportunity to respond). In this instance, 

Plaintiff’s motion sets forth no grounds justifying deviation from the standard practice and procedure. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1)(B); Local Rule 230(l); Hill, 2005 WL 3031136, at *1. Therefore, Plaintiff’s 

motion is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 13, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:17-cv-01452-AWI-SAB Document 75 Filed 02/14/20 Page 2 of 2