Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01336/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01336-21/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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

WILLIAM ALLEN GARRETT, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JEFF MACOMBER, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:16-cv-1336 KJM AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Currently pending before the court are defendants’ motion to strike, ECF No. 

115, and plaintiff’s motion for emergency injunctive relief, ECF No. 116. 

I. Procedural History 

 On October 25, 2019, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 93. 

The motion was later vacated on November 26, 2019, “[b]ecause the deadline for filing 

dispositive motions was not extended to allow for the resolution of [an] outstanding discovery 

matter, and the court . . . ordered the disclosure of additional documents and the supplementation 

of responses that plaintiff may wish to utilize in opposition to defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment.” ECF No. 103 at 15. After the discovery matter was resolved, defendants were given 

an opportunity to re-file and re-serve their motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 108, and did 

so on January 13, 2020. ECF No. 112. 

Case 2:16-cv-01336-KJM-AC Document 119 Filed 02/07/20 Page 1 of 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 

2 

II. Defendants’ Motion to Strike 

 On January 9, 2020, plaintiff filed objections to defendants’ originally filed motion for 

summary judgment, ECF No. 109, which defendants have moved to strike, ECF No. 115. As 

defendants’ point out, plaintiff’s objections constitute an unauthorized sur-reply and the originally 

filed motion for summary judgment was vacated well in advance of plaintiff’s objections. For 

these reasons, the motion to strike will be granted. Plaintiff is free to raise the arguments from his 

objections as part of his opposition to defendants’ re-filed motion for summary judgment. 

III. Plaintiff’s Motion for Emergency Injunctive Relief 

 Plaintiff has filed a motion for emergency injunctive relief in which he states that he has 

an opposition to defendants’ motion to strike prepared, but that he is in the prison’s mental health 

program and that the prison “does not allow prisoner[s] in this program access to the law library 

or any form of timely access to obtain legal copies to the court.” ECF No. 116 at 1. He requests 

that the court order the prison to provide him with copies and law library access. Id. at 3. 

Because the motion to strike is being granted without prejudice to plaintiff re-raising his 

objections in response to the re-filed motion for summary judgment, the motion for injunctive 

relief is moot and will be denied as such. However, in light of plaintiff’s assertions that he is 

having difficulty accessing the law library and obtaining timely copies, the court will extend the 

time to file an opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Defendants’ motion to strike, ECF No. 115, is granted. 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for emergency injunctive relief, ECF No. 116, is denied as moot. 

3. Within thirty days of service of this order, plaintiff shall file a response to defendants’ 

motion for summary judgment. Failure to file a response will result in a recommendation that this 

action be dismissed for failure to prosecute. 

DATED: February 6, 2020 

Case 2:16-cv-01336-KJM-AC Document 119 Filed 02/07/20 Page 2 of 2