Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01817/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01817-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

LARRY BRIAN PORTEOUS,

Petitioner,

v.

RAY FISHER, JR., Warden,

Respondent.

No. 2:15-cv-1817 GEB KJN P

ORDER

Petitioner is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, challenging his 1996 conviction. 

On October 29, 2015, respondent filed a motion to dismiss this action as barred by the statute of 

limitations. Petitioner filed an opposition, and respondent filed a reply. However, on February 

16, 2016, petitioner filed a document entitled, “Supplemental Opposition to Respondent’s Motion 

to Dismiss. . . ,” which was filed with the assistance of a jailhouse lawyer. On February 26, 2016, 

respondent filed a request for extension of time to respond to petitioner’s supplemental 

opposition, provided the court decides to entertain petitioner’s unauthorized supplemental 

opposition. 

While the Local Rules provide for a motion, an opposition, and a reply, the Local Rules 

and the Federal Rules do not provide the right to file a sur-reply. See E.D. Cal. R. 230(b)-(d), (l). 

Nonetheless, when a party has raised new arguments or presented new evidence in a reply to an 

opposition, the court may permit the other party to counter the new arguments or evidence. El 

Case 2:15-cv-01817-GEB-KJN Document 25 Filed 03/01/16 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

Pollo Loco v. Hashim, 316 F.3d 1032, 1040-41 (9th Cir. 2003). Here, it appears that petitioner 

does not dispute the calculation of the limitations period, but rather claims that he is entitled to 

equitable tolling based on his serious mental illness. In the reply, respondent provided numerous 

documents from petitioner’s mental health and prison records. (ECF No. 21-1-11.) Because 

petitioner was unable to address such evidence, the undersigned finds the supplemental 

opposition was properly filed, and will consider the supplemental opposition in connection with 

the motion to dismiss. Therefore, respondent’s request for an extension of time to respond to the 

supplemental opposition is granted. However, upon the filing of the response, briefing is closed, 

and no further filings shall be submitted absent permission by the court. 

In addition, petitioner has renewed his request for the appointment of counsel. However, 

for the reasons stated in the December 8, 2015 order, the court does not find that the interests of 

justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at this time. (ECF No. 16 at 2-3.) 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner is granted leave, nunc pro tunc, to file the supplemental opposition, and the

February 16, 2016 filing (ECF No. 22) is deemed properly filed;

2. Respondent’s motion for extension of time to file a response to the supplemental 

opposition (ECF No. 24) is granted;

3. Respondent shall file a response to the supplemental opposition on or before March 17, 

2016; no further briefing is permitted by either party; and

4. Petitioner’s February 16, 2016 request for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 23) is 

denied without prejudice.

Dated: March 1, 2016

port1817.110

Case 2:15-cv-01817-GEB-KJN Document 25 Filed 03/01/16 Page 2 of 2