Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01601/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01601-5/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

LACEDRIC JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

SCOTT FRAUENHEIM, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:14-cv-01601-LJO-SKO (PC)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO STRIKE 

(Docs. 41, 42, 43, 44)

Plaintiff, Lacedric Johnson, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 14, 2014. On December 22, 2015, 

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 30.) On February 16, 2016, Plaintiff 

filed a memorandum of points and authorities (Doc. 37, pp. 1-22), his supporting declaration (id., 

at pp. 23-28), a statement of facts he asserts are undisputed (Doc. 38), and a response to 

Defendants’ statement of undisputed facts (Doc. 39). Defendants filed their reply shortly 

thereafter. (Doc. 40.) 

On February 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for judicial intervention requesting, among 

other things,1that his opposition (which he believed had not previously been received) be accepted 

for filing (Doc. 43). He also submitted duplicate copies of the documents he filed in opposition to 

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Docs. 41, 42).2 Instead of filing an opposition to 

Plaintiff’s motion for intervention, Defendants filed a motion seeking to strike all three 

documents filed by Plaintiff on February 26, 2016 as improper surreplies. (Doc. 44.) 

///

 

1

Plaintiff also seeks an order directing Defendants to cease and desist “unethical conduct” and admonishing prison 

officials to “better regulate their legal mail” which is addressed by separately issued findings and recommendations.

2 Though grouped differently from the documents previously filed by Plaintiff, Docs. 41 and 42 are exact duplicates of 

the documents filed at Docs. 37, 38, and 39.

Case 1:14-cv-01601-LJO-SKO Document 46 Filed 04/19/16 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

2

Two of the documents filed by Plaintiff which Defendants seek to have stricken as 

surreplies are exact duplicates of the documents filed by Plaintiff in opposition to Defendants’ 

motion for summary judgment. (Docs. 41, 42 compare Docs. 37, 38, 39.) Plaintiff’s motion for 

intervention shows that Plaintiff was under the mistaken belief that his opposition documents 

(Docs. 37, 38, 39) had not been received by the Court. Thus, Documents 41 and 42 are properly 

stricken as they are duplicative of Documents 37, 38, and 39. However, Document 43 is 

Plaintiff’s motion for intervention and is not subject to being stricken from the record. (See Doc. 

43.) It appears that Defendants typographically erred by including that document number in their 

motion to strike. (See Doc. 44.) 

Defendants further request that their motion for summary judgment be deemed unopposed 

and submitted based on their assertion that Plaintiff’s opposition is untimely. Defendants filed 

their motion for summary judgment on December 22, 2015. (Doc. 30.) Plaintiff requested and 

received an extension of time up to February 13, 2016, to file his opposition. (Docs. 32, 33.) 

Though Plaintiff’s opposing documents were not received and filed on the docket of this case until 

February 18, 2016, his attached proofs of service indicate that he gave them to prison staff for 

mailing on February 1, 2016 -- which makes them timely. See Caldwell v. Amend, 30 F.3d 1199, 

1202 (9th Cir. 1994); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270 (1988).

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to strike, filed on March 

2, 2016, is granted in part and denied in part as follows: 

(1) Plaintiff’s duplicate documents in opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment (Docs. 41, 42) are HEREBY ORDERED STRICKEN from the record; 

(2) Plaintiff’s motion for intervention will not be stricken and will be separately 

addressed; and 

(3) Defendants’ request that their motion for summary judgment be deemed unopposed is 

denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 19, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

Case 1:14-cv-01601-LJO-SKO Document 46 Filed 04/19/16 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

3

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01601-LJO-SKO Document 46 Filed 04/19/16 Page 3 of 3