Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00519/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00519-9/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

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

BRIAN ESPRITT, 

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

A. SAESEE, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:11-cv-00519-AWI-GSA-PC

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S 

EXHIBITS FILED ON SEPTEMBER 10, 

2014 AS UNTIMELY AND IN VIOLATION 

OF LOCAL RULE 220

(Doc. 65.)

I. BACKGROUND

Brian Espritt (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing 

this action on March 28, 2011. (Doc. 1.) This case now proceeds on the Second Amended 

Complaint, filed by Plaintiff on July 20, 2012, against defendants A. Saesee (Correctional 

Counselor I) and Correctional Officers (C/Os) S. Hill, S. Torres, J. Davis, M. Lopez, A. 

Ballesteros, and Y. Magallon (collectively, “Defendants”), for use of excessive force in 

violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 17.)1

On May 7, 2014, Defendants filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. (Doc. 56.) On 

August 18, 2014, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion. (Doc. 62.) On August 25, 2014, 

Defendants filed a reply to Plaintiff's opposition. (Doc. 63.) On September 10, 2014, Plaintiff 

filed exhibits in support of his opposition. (Doc. 65.)

II. LOCAL RULE 230(l) – UNTIMELY FILING

Plaintiff’s exhibits in support of his opposition were untimely filed. Under Local Rule 

230(l), Plaintiff was permitted to file an opposition to Defendants’ motion “not more than 

 

1 On June 20, 2013, the court dismissed all other claims and defendants from this action, based on 

Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under § 1983. (Doc. 33.)

Case 1:11-cv-00519-AWI-SAB Document 66 Filed 09/15/14 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

twenty-one (21) days after the date of service of the motion.” L.R. 230(l). Defendants’ 

motion was served on May 7, 2014, and Plaintiff filed his exhibits in support of his opposition

on September 10, 2014, more than twenty-one days after May 7, 2014, (Docs. 56-2, 65). 

Therefore, Plaintiff’s exhibits were untimely filed and shall be stricken from the record. 

III. LOCAL RULE 220 – CHANGED PLEADINGS

Plaintiff’s exhibits also violate Rule 220 which provides, in pertinent part, “[u]nless 

prior approval to the contrary is obtained from the Court, every pleading to which an 

amendment or supplement is permitted as a matter of right or has been allowed by court order 

shall be retyped and filed so that it is complete in itself without reference to the prior or 

superseded pleading. No pleading shall be deemed amended or supplemented until this Rule 

has been complied with. All changed pleadings shall contain copies of all exhibits referred to in 

the changed pleading.” L.R. 220. On August 18, 2014, Plaintiff filed an opposition to 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (Doc. 62.) On September 10, 2014, Plaintiff submitted 

exhibits in support of the opposition. (Doc. 65.) Under Rule 220, Plaintiff may not amend his 

opposition by submitting exhibits in support of the opposition after the opposition has been 

filed. Therefore, Plaintiff’s exhibits filed on September 10, 2014, were filed in violation of 

Local Rule 220. 

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s exhibits, filed on 

September 10, 2014, are STRICKEN from the record as untimely filed and in violation of 

Local Rule 220.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 13, 2014 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00519-AWI-SAB Document 66 Filed 09/15/14 Page 2 of 2