Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00986/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00986-31/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

VALENTINE E. UNDERWOOD,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. KNOWLES, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:08-cv-00986-GSA-PC

ORDER STRIKING SURREPLY

(Doc. 135.) 

 

ORDER PERMITTING PLAINTIFF

OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW

OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT AND FILE AMENDED

OPPOSITION IN LIGHT OF SEPARATELYISSUED SUMMARY JUDGMENT NOTICE

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

ORDER VACATING MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT FROM COURT’S

CALENDAR TO ALLOW TIME FOR

AMENDMENT OF OPPOSITION AND REPLY

(Doc. 122.)

I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Valentine E. Underwood ("Plaintiff")is a prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on July 17,

2008. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on the original Complaint, against defendants

Correctional Officer (“C/O”) M. Northcutt and C/O S. Martin for retaliation, in violation of the First

Amendment; and against defendants C/O M. Northcutt, C/O S. Martin, C/O D. Caviness, C/O A.

Trujillo, and C/O P. Truitt, ("Defendants") for use of excessive force, in violation of the Eighth

1

Case 1:08-cv-00986-BAM Document 136 Filed 08/27/12 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

Amendment. The parties have consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1

636(c), and on June 15, 2011, this case was reassigned to the undersigned for all further proceedings. 

(Docs. 4, 97, 102.) 

On February 17, 2012, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, and on April 26,

2012, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion. (Docs. 122, 127.) On April 30, 2012, Plaintiff filed

a motion to file three affidavits in support of his opposition. (Doc. 129.) On May 18, 2012,

Defendants filed a reply to the opposition. (Doc. 127.) On June 11, 2012, the Court granted

Plaintiff’s motion of April 30, 2012 and filed Plaintiff’s three affidavits. (Docs. 132, 133.) On July

23, 2012, Plaintiff filed a surreply. (Doc. 135.) 

II. PLAINTIFF’S SURREPLY

Plaintiff filed a surreply on July 23, 2012 titled “Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants Reply

to Plaintiff’s Opposition To Motion For Summary Judgment.” (Doc. 135.) 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 shall be stricken from the record as an

unauthorized pleading. 

III. OPPORTUNITY FOR PLAINTIFF TO WITHDRAW OPPOSITION AND FILE

AMENDED OPPOSITION, IF HE SO WISHES

In light of the recent decision in Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 940 (9th Cir. 2012), Plaintiff

must be provided with “fair notice” of the requirements for opposing a motion for summary

judgment at the time the motion is brought, and the notice given in this case some three years prior

does not suffice. On July 10, 2012, the Court provided the requisite notice by re-serving a copy of

the Second Informational Order, which includes a summary judgment notice, upon Plaintiff. (Doc.

134.) By separate order entitled “Amended Second Informational Order - Notice and Warning of

Requirements for Opposing Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment,” issued concurrentlywith

Defendant Seth Lantz was dismissed from this action on July 18, 2011, via Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss.

1

(Doc. 107.) Defendant J. Fambrough was dismissed from this action on December 9, 2011, via Plaintiff's motion to

dismiss. (Doc. 121.) All other claims and defendants were dismissed by the Court on October 21, 2009, based on

Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. (Doc. 31.)

2

Case 1:08-cv-00986-BAM Document 136 Filed 08/27/12 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

this order, the Court has again provided the requisite notice. At this juncture, Plaintiff shall be

allowed the opportunity to file an amended opposition, if he so wishes. The Court will not consider

multiple oppositions, however, and Plaintiff has two options upon receipt of the notice and this

order. Plaintiff may either (1) stand on his previously-filed opposition documents filed on April 26,

2012 and June 11, 2012, or (2) withdraw them and file an amended opposition.

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s surreply filed on July 23, 2012 is STRICKEN from the record as an

unauthorized pleading;

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

his opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and file an amended

opposition;

3. If Plaintiff does not file an amended opposition in response to this order, his existing

opposition documents, filed on April 26, 2012 and June 11, 2012, will be considered

in resolving Defendants’ motion for summary judgment; 

4. If Plaintiff elects to file an amended opposition, Defendants’ existing reply, filed on 

May 18, 2012, will not be considered and they may file an amended reply pursuant

to Local Rule 230(l); and

5. In light of 28 U.S.C. § 476(a)(1), the Civil Justice Reform Act, Defendants’ motion

for summaryjudgment is HEREBYDEEMEDVACATEDfrom theCourt’s calendar

to allow time for the filing of an amended opposition and amended reply.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 24, 2012 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:08-cv-00986-BAM Document 136 Filed 08/27/12 Page 3 of 3