Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02040/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02040-14/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 

DIRK JAONG BOUIE, JR., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

OSCAR SMITH, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:18-cv-2040 KJM AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983, has filed a notice regarding missing exhibits. ECF No. 51. A review of plaintiff’s 

opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgement shows that the pages plaintiff believed 

to be missing from his exhibits were included in the copy he sent to the court, except for some of 

the pages from the OIG Report on High Desert State Prison. However, the report is available 

online, so there is no need for plaintiff to send duplicates of any exhibit pages. 

Plaintiff’s notice also indicates his intention to file a sur-reply. ECF No. 51 at 1. Neither 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor the Local Rules contemplate the filing of a sur-reply, the 

court did not request one, and plaintiff has identified no grounds that would compel the court to 

authorize the filing of a sur-reply. Plaintiff is therefore advised that he should not file a sur-reply 

without first obtaining permission to do so, and failure to obtain permission will result in the surreply being disregarded. To the extent plaintiff intended to address defendants’ arguments that 

Case 2:18-cv-02040-DC-AC Document 52 Filed 05/28/21 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 

his declaration should be stricken because it is unsworn and that he did not comply with Local 

Rule 260(b), ECF No. 50 at 5, the court is aware that plaintiff’s declaration was signed under 

penalty of perjury, ECF No. 49 at 9, and finds that his response to defendants’ statement of facts, 

id. at 57-64, substantially complies with Local Rule 260(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: May 28, 2021 

 

Case 2:18-cv-02040-DC-AC Document 52 Filed 05/28/21 Page 2 of 2