Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01745/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01745-10/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IVAN KILGORE,

Plaintiff,

v.

GRANNIS, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:11-cv-1745 TLN DB P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights 

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on May 16, 

2016. On June 27, 2016, plaintiff filed an opposition. Defendants filed a reply on July 18, 2016. 

On July 29, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file a response, 

essentially a sur-reply, to defendants’ reply brief. (ECF No. 67.) Defendants opposed that 

motion. (ECF No. 69.) On August 5, plaintiff filed that response. (ECF No. 70.) On August 

18, defendants moved to strike plaintiff’s sur-reply. (ECF No. 71.) Any opposition to the motion 

to strike was due by September 12, 2016. Local Rule 230(l). Plaintiff has not filed an opposition 

to defendants’ motion. 

In the court’s November 20, 2013 order, the parties were advised that all motions filed in 

this case “shall be briefed pursuant to L.R. 230(l).” (ECF No. 21 at 3.) Local Rule 230(l) 

provides for the filing of a motion, opposition, and reply. The rule states that motions in prisoner 

Case 2:11-cv-01745-TLN-DB Document 72 Filed 09/28/16 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

cases “will be deemed submitted when the time to reply has expired.” The rule does not provide for 

the filing of a sur-reply. 

In his request for an extension of time, plaintiff states that he needs to file an additional brief 

because in their reply defendants “contested” a “number of issues” that “were not raised in their 

moving papers.” (ECF No. 67.) In their opposition to plaintiff’s motion, defendants state that they 

“did not provide any new evidence in the reply to Plaintiff’s opposition, nor did Defendants raise new 

issues or arguments.” (ECF No. 69 at 3.) Plaintiff does not identify any new issues or arguments 

either in his motion for an extension of time or in the “response” he filed on August 5. Plaintiff has 

failed to show why the court should permit his additional brief. Plaintiff is advised that if the court 

requires additional briefing, it will order the parties to provide it.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s July 29, 2016 Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 67) is denied;

2. Defendants’ August 18, 2016 Motion to Strike (ECF No. 71) is granted; and

3. Plaintiff’s August 5, 2016 Response (ECF No. 70) is stricken from the record. 

Dated: September 28, 2016

DLB:9

DLB1/prisoner-civil rights/kilg1745.mts

Case 2:11-cv-01745-TLN-DB Document 72 Filed 09/28/16 Page 2 of 2