Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00519/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00519-12/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

BRIAN ESPRITT,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

A. SAESEE, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:11-cv-00519-AWI-GSA-PC

 

ORDER STRIKING SURREPLY

(Doc. 81.)

ORDER PERMITTING PLAINTIFF 

OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW 

OPPOSITION AND FILE AMENDED 

OPPOSITION 

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

I. BACKGROUND

Brian Espritt (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing 

this action on March 28, 2011. (Doc. 1.) This case now proceeds on the Second Amended 

Complaint, filed by Plaintiff on July 20, 2012, against defendants A. Saesee (Correctional 

Counselor I) and Correctional Officers (C/Os) S. Hill, S. Torres, J. Davis, M. Lopez, A. 

Case 1:11-cv-00519-AWI-SAB Document 82 Filed 05/20/15 Page 1 of 3
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

Ballesteros, and Y. Magallon (collectively, “Defendants”), for use of excessive force in 

violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 17.)1

On January 16, 2015, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment based on failure 

to exhaust administrative remedies. (Doc. 72.) On April 17, 2015, Plaintiff filed an opposition 

to the motion. (Doc. 77.) On May 15, 2015, Defendants filed a reply to Plaintiff’s opposition. 

(Doc. 80.) 

On May 18, 2015, Plaintiff filed a supplement to his opposition, which the court 

construes as a surreply. (Doc. 81.)

II. SURREPLY

A surreply, or sur-reply, is an additional reply to a motion filed after the motion has 

already been fully briefed. USLegal.com, http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/sur-reply/ (last 

visited December 31, 2013). The Local Rules provide for a motion, an opposition, and a reply. 

Neither the Local Rules nor the Federal Rules provide the right to file a surreply, and the Court 

neither requested one nor granted a request on the behalf of Plaintiff to file one. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff=s surreply, filed on May 18, 2015, shall be stricken from the record. A district court 

may allow a surreply to be filed, but only “where a valid reason for such additional briefing 

exists, such as where the movant raises new arguments in its reply brief.” Hill v. England, 

2005 WL 3031136, *1 (E.D.Cal. Nov. 8, 2005). 

Under Local Rule 230(l), Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of January 16, 

2015 was fully briefed and submitted on the record on May 15, 2015, when Defendants filed 

their reply to Plaintiff’s opposition. Plaintiff has not shown good cause for the court to allow 

him to file a surreply. Therefore, Plaintiff’s surreply shall be stricken from the record.

III. LEAVE TO AMEND

In the interest of allowing the parties to fully brief the issues, the court shall open a 

thirty-day time period for Plaintiff to amend his opposition to the pending motion for summary 

judgment, if he so wishes. The court will not consider multiple oppositions, however, and 

 

1 On June 20, 2013, the court dismissed all other claims and defendants from this action, based on 

Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under § 1983. (Doc. 33.)

Case 1:11-cv-00519-AWI-SAB Document 82 Filed 05/20/15 Page 2 of 3
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

Plaintiff has two options upon receipt of this order. Plaintiff may either (1) stand on his 

previously-filed opposition of April 17, 2015, or (2) withdraw it and file an Amended 

Opposition. The Amended Opposition, if any, must be complete in itself and must not refer 

back to any of the opposition documents filed on April 17, 2015 or May 18, 2015. L. R. 220.2

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s surreply, filed on May 18, 2015, is STRICKEN from the court’s 

record;

2. Plaintiff may, within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, 

withdraw his opposition of April 17, 2015 and file an Amended Opposition to 

Defendants= motion for summary judgment of January 16, 2015;

3. If Plaintiff does not file an Amended Opposition in response to this order, his 

existing opposition, filed on April 17, 2015, will be considered in resolving 

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment; and

4. If Plaintiff elects to file an Amended Opposition, Defendants may file a reply 

pursuant to Local Rule 230(l). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 20, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

2Local Rule 220 provides, in part: AUnless prior approval to the contrary is obtained from the Court, every 

pleading to which an amendment or supplement is permitted as a matter of right or has been allowed by court 

order shall be retyped and filed so that it is complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading. 

No pleading shall be deemed amended or supplemented until this Rule has been complied with. All changed 

pleadings shall contain copies of all exhibits referred to in the changed pleading.@

Case 1:11-cv-00519-AWI-SAB Document 82 Filed 05/20/15 Page 3 of 3