Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01354/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01354-20/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARRELL HARRIS,

 Plaintiff,

v.

S. ESCAMILLA,

 Defendant.

Case No. 1:13-cv-1354-DAD-MJS (PC)

ORDER GRANTING NUNC PRO TUNC 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXTEND 

TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO STRIKE EVIDENCE

(ECF No. 113)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO STRIKE SURREPLIES

(ECF No. 125)

CLERK TO STRIKE ECF NO. 123 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case proceeds on Plaintiff’s 

October 31, 2013, first amended complaint (“FAC”) against Defendant Escamilla for 

violating Plaintiff’s First Amendment right to the free exercise of his religion. (ECF No. 

9.) 

I. Relevant Procedural History

On February 8, 2016, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 

69.) On July 18, 2016, Plaintiff filed a 151 page opposition to Defendant’s motion. (ECF 

No. 107.) Plaintiff’s opposition contained numerous supporting documents and 

affidavits. On July 26, 2016, Defendant filed his reply. (ECF No. 109.) The matter was 

Case 1:13-cv-01354-DAD-JDP Document 139 Filed 12/12/16 Page 1 of 4
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

deemed submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l), and on September 22, 2016, the 

undersigned issued findings and recommendations to grant Defendant’s motion for 

summary judgment. (ECF No. 120.) Those findings and recommendations are currently 

pending before the District Judge assigned to the case. 

Within his reply, Defendant filed a motion seeking to strike several pieces of 

evidence submitted by Plaintiff in support of his opposition. (ECF No. 109-3.) In issuing 

its findings and recommendations, the Court recommended denying Defendant’s motion

to strike, and instead considered the documents it deemed relevant while disregarding 

the rest. (ECF No. 120 at 2.)

However, Plaintiff ultimately sought an extension of time in which to file a 

response to Defendant’s motion to strike (ECF No. 113), and on September 22, 2016, 

filed his “Reply to Defendant’s Objections and Motion to Strike Evidence.” (ECF No. 

124.) That same day, Plaintiff also filed his “Objections to Defendant’s Slanderous 

Statements Made in His Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition.” (ECF No. 123.) On October 4, 

2016, Defendant filed a motion to strike ECF Nos. 123 & 124 as unauthorized 

surreplies. (ECF No. 125.) On November 3, 2016, Plaintiff filed an opposition. (ECF No. 

134.) Defendant did not file a reply and the time to do so has passed. The matters are 

submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

II. Plaintiff’s Allegations

At the time of the events underlying this action, Plaintiff was incarcerated at 

California State Prison (“CSP-Corcoran”) in Corcoran, California.

The following factual allegations are taken from Plaintiff’s FAC: Plaintiff is a 

practicing Muslim. On January 14, 2013, Defendant and his partner, Officer Sanchez, 

searched Plaintiff’s cell while Plaintiff was not present, however Plaintiff’s cellmate, 

inmate Rudy Tellez, was present. During the search, Defendant picked up Plaintiff’s 

Quran, removed it from its cloth cover, and dropped it on the ground, stepped on it, and 

kicked it under Plaintiff’s bunk. According to Plaintiff, this rendered the Quran unusable. 

The following facts, taken from Defendant’s summary judgment motion, are 

Case 1:13-cv-01354-DAD-JDP Document 139 Filed 12/12/16 Page 2 of 4
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

3

undisputed: Plaintiff attempted to obtain a new Quran from the prison chapel the day 

after the search, but was denied access by an unidentified officer. He was again unable 

to enter the chapel a few days later because the prison was on lockdown. Plaintiff did 

not obtain a new Quran until ten days after the cell search. At no point during those ten 

days did Plaintiff’s request a replacement Quran from prison staff.

III. Defendant’s Motion to Strike Surreplies

Defendant moves to strike ECF Nos. 123 and 124 because they were filed 

without Plaintiff first seeking the Court’s leave. Defendant does not address the content 

of either filing.

Defendant is correct 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). 

Courts allow surreplies “only where a valid reason for such additional briefing exists.”

See Hill v. England, No. CVF05869 REC TAG, 2005 WL 3031136, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 

2005). 

A. Objections to Defendant’s Slanderous Statements

The Court agrees that Plaintiff’s “Objections to Defendant’s Slanderous 

Statements” (ECF No. 123) constitutes an unauthorized surreply and should be stricken 

from the record. Therein, Plaintiff merely restates and reiterates his version of the facts 

underlying this case, while addressing no new arguments raised by Defendant. 

Defendant’s motion to strike as to ECF No.123 will be granted.

B. Reply to Motion to Strike

However, Plaintiff’s “Reply to Defendant’s Objections and Motion to Strike 

Evidence in Plaintiff’s Opposition” (ECF No. 124) properly addresses new arguments 

raised by Defendant in his reply, to wit, a motion to strike evidence Plaintiff submitted 

with his opposition. As Plaintiff is entitled to be heard on this issue, there exists a “valid 

reason” for additional briefing. Hill, 2005 WL 3031136, at *1. Therefore, Defendant’s 

motion to strike as to ECF No. 124 will be denied. The document will remain of record 

and available to any and all reviewing Courts. Its content has been considered by the 

Case 1:13-cv-01354-DAD-JDP Document 139 Filed 12/12/16 Page 3 of 4
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

4

undersigned and found to be of no consequence in the consideration and grant of 

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

IV. Extension of Time to File Surreply

Good cause having been shown for Plaintiff’s surreply (ECF No. 124), Plaintiff’s 

motion for an extension of time in which to file it (ECF No. 113) is granted. The Court 

finds it to have been timely filed.

V. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ordered:

1. Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s surreplies (ECF No. 125) is GRANTED 

in part and DENIED in part, consistent with this order;

2. The Clerk of Court shall STRIKE ECF No. 123 from the record; and

3. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time in which to file a response to 

Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s evidence (ECF No. 113) is GRANTED, 

nunc pro tunc to August 2, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 11, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01354-DAD-JDP Document 139 Filed 12/12/16 Page 4 of 4