Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-00354/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-00354-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Seth W Sebert, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Arizona Department of Corrections, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-16-00354-PHX-ROS (ESW)

ORDER 

Plaintiff Asia Lynn Sebert, who is represented by counsel, filed an original 

Complaint and Amended Complaint in the Maricopa County Superior Court (Doc. 1, Att. 

3, 4). On February 6, 2016, Defendant Arizona Department of Corrections filed a Notice 

of Removal (Doc. 1), paid the filing fee, and removed the action to this Court. On 

February 12, 2016, Defendant Arizona Department of Corrections filed an Unopposed 

Motion to Extend Responsive Pleading Deadline (Doc. 4), which was granted in an Order 

filed on February 16, 2016 (Doc. 5). On February 19, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Second 

Amended Complaint (Doc. 6). On February 22, 2016, Defendants Wexford Health 

Sources, Inc. and Caron Grant-Ellis filed an Answer to the First Amended Complaint 

(Doc. 7). On February 22, 2016, Defendants Corizon Health Inc., Corizon Inc., Corizon 

LLC, and Corizon Health of New Jersey LLC filed an Answer to the First Amended 

Complaint (Doc. 10). The Arizona Department of Corrections (“ADOC”), State of 

Arizona, and ADOC Director Charles Ryan (collectively “State Defendants”) filed a 

WO

Case 2:16-cv-00354-ROS Document 85 Filed 06/17/16 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

Motion to Dismiss all claims (Doc. 13). Defendant Villavicencio filed a Motion to 

Dismiss and Joinder with the State Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 14). 

Defendants Wexford Health Sources, Inc. and Caron Grant-Ellis filed a Motion for 

Judgment on the Pleadings as to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Doc. 17).

Plaintiff has filed a Supplemental Response to State Defendants’ and 

Villavicencio’s Motions to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Separate Motion for F.R.C.P. 

56(d) Relief (Doc. 26). State Defendants filed a Motion to Strike (Doc. 28) the 

Supplemental Response.

The Court has considered all non-dispositive, pending motions and sets forth its 

ruling herein.

I. DISCUSSION

Motion to Strike (Doc. 28)

State Defendants move to strike Plaintiff’s Supplemental Response to State 

Defendants’ and Villavicencio’s Motions to Dismiss (Doc. 26) pursuant to LRCiv 7.2(m) 

because Plaintiff’s Supplemental Response was not solicited by the Court or authorized 

under LRCiv 7.2(c). Plaintiff’s Supplemental Response was filed after Defendants’ 

Reply briefs (Docs. 24, 25) and is deemed a sur-reply. The Court has discretion to permit 

the filing of a sur-reply. In determining whether to allow a sur-reply, a “district court 

should consider whether the movant’s reply in fact raises arguments or issues for the first 

time, whether the nonmovant’s proposed surreply would be helpful to the resolution of 

the pending motion, and whether the movant would be unduly prejudiced were leave to 

be granted.” Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, 69 F. Supp. 3d 75, 85 (D.D.C. 2014) 

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 

A new issue is raised in the State Defendants’ Reply. The State Defendants assert 

that “Because Plaintiff submitted exhibits [with Plaintiff’s Response to the Motion to 

Dismiss], this Court may properly deem the motion as converted into one for summary 

judgment.” (Doc. 24 at 3). In the Ninth Circuit, “a motion to dismiss is not 

automatically converted into a motion for summary judgment whenever matters outside 

- 2 -

Case 2:16-cv-00354-ROS Document 85 Filed 06/17/16 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 

the pleading happen to be filed with the court and not expressly rejected by the court.” 

North Star Int’l v. Arizona Corporation Comm’n, 720 F.2d 578, 582 (9th Cir. 1983) 

(holding that district court properly treated motion as motion to dismiss, despite presence 

of affidavits, where there was no indication of the court’s reliance on outside materials 

and the court expressly stated that it was dismissing for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief could be granted); Keams v. Temple Technical Institute, Inc., 110 F.3d 44, 46 

(9th Cir. 1997) (“12(b)(6) motion need not be converted into a motion for summary 

judgment when matters outside the pleading are introduced, provided that ‘nothing in the 

record suggest[s] reliance’ on those extraneous materials”). Rather, “a district court must 

take some affirmative action to effectuate conversion.” Swedberg v. Marotzke, 339 F.3d 

1139, 1142 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Because the State Defendants’ Reply raises the issue as to whether the Court 

should convert the Motion to Dismiss to a motion for summary judgment, it is 

appropriate to allow the filing of a sur-reply. Moreover, the State Defendants have 

replied to the Supplemental Response and fully articulated their position in opposition to 

Plaintiff’s Supplemental Response. The Court does not find that permitting the 

Supplemental Response would be unduly prejudicial to Defendants. Therefore, the 

Motion to Strike will be denied. 

II. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth herein, 

IT IS ORDERED denying Motion to Strike (Doc. 28). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED withdrawing the reference to the Magistrate Judge 

on the following fully briefed dispositive motions: State Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss 

(Doc. 13); Defendant Villavicencio’s Motion to Dismiss and Joinder with the State 

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 14); and Defendants Wexford Health Sources, Inc. 

and Caron Grant-Ellis’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 17). 

Dated this 17th day of June, 2016. 

- 3 - 

Case 2:16-cv-00354-ROS Document 85 Filed 06/17/16 Page 3 of 3