Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-01043/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-01043-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JAMES MCCURDY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

M. RIVERO, et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 17-01043 BLF (PR) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

FILE OBJECTIONS IN SURREPLY; GRANTING LEAVE TO 

FILE SWORN DECLARATION IN 

SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION 

(Docket No. 140)

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, (Docket No. 118), 

which became submitted on August 1, 2019, upon the filing of their reply, (Docket No. 

139). (Docket No. 13 at 6.) 

On August 8, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file a surreply to Defendants’ reply. (Docket No. 140.) In the accompanying declaration, Plaintiff 

asserts that Defendants, in their reply, objected to his opposition on the grounds that it is 

not properly sworn and signed under penalty of perjury. (Docket No. 140-1 at 2.) He 

requests leave to file a properly sworn and signed declaration in opposition to Defendants’ 

summary judgment motion along with other objections. 

Case 5:17-cv-01043-BLF Document 143 Filed 08/26/19 Page 1 of 2
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

Local Rule 7-3(d) provides that an opposition party may file and serve an objection 

to reply evidence only “if new evidence has been submitted in the reply.” See Civil L.R. 

7-3(d). Plaintiff makes no assertion that Defendants have improperly submitted any new 

evidence in their reply. Rather, the only evidence submitted by Defendants with their 

reply was to refute the evidence Plaintiff submitted in support of his opposition. (Docket 

No. 139.) Accordingly, on that basis alone the motion should be denied under Local Rule 

7-3(d). However, in the interest of justice and in light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, Plaintiff 

shall be granted an opportunity to file a properly sworn and signed declaration in support 

of his opposition to Defendants’ summary judgment motion. That is the only additional 

document from Plaintiff that the Court will accept and consider in deciding Defendants’ 

summary judgment motion. 

Plaintiff shall file his sworn declaration no later than fourteen (14) days from the 

date this order is filed. Defendants’ summary judgment motion shall be deemed submitted 

on the date Plaintiff’s sworn declaration is due. No further extensions of time shall be 

granted. 

This order terminates Docket No. 140. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _____________________ ________________________ 

BETH LABSON FREEMAN 

United States District Judge 

Order Granting Ext. of Time to File Sworn Decl. 

PRO-SE\BLF\CR.17\01043McCurdy_eot-surreply 

Case 5:17-cv-01043-BLF Document 143 Filed 08/26/19 Page 2 of 2