Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01628/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01628-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Plaintiff's pro se status does not excuse compliance with the court's page limits. Some

procedural rules may be relaxed for pro se litigants, but a brief that is more than twice the limit

is unacceptable regardless whether it was written by an attorney or an unrepresented litigant.

The excessiveness of the length is more apparent when one considers that 53-page brief responds

to a legal brief that was only 16 pages in length. It wastes limited judicial resources and is unfair

to the many other litigants before the court for the court to have to read the prolix 53-page

opposition brief (plus the 63-page first amended complaint) to decide the motion. 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

SANTA CLARA COUNTY; et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-1628 SI (pr)

ORDER

Plaintiff's motion to dismiss his complaint against defendant Judge Alfonso Fernandez

is GRANTED. (Docket # 40.) In light of that, defendant Fernandez's motion to dismiss the

complaint is DISMISSED as moot. (Docket # 34.) Judge Alfonso Fernandez is dismissed from

this action.

Plaintiff's 53-page opposition to defendant Judge Paul Bernal's motion to dismiss is

STRICKEN because it did not comply with the court's page limits on briefs. Under Local Rule

7-4, the legal brief in a motion or opposition may not exceed 25 pages and a reply brief may not

exceed 15 pages. The court will permit plaintiff to file a replacement opposition brief that

complies with the 25-page limit, provided that he files and serves it no later than May 4, 2007.

1

Plaintiff is reminded that Local Rule 7-4 also requires that any brief more than 10 pages in

length must include a table of contents and table of authorities. Failure to file the brief will

result in the motion being deemed unopposed. Defendant Bernal may file a replacement reply

Case 3:05-cv-01628-SI Document 43 Filed 04/04/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

brief no later than May 18, 2007.

Plaintiff is reminded that discovery requests and responses are not supposed to be filed

with the court when made. Discovery requests and responses normally are exchanged between

the parties without any copy sent to the court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d) (listing discovery

requests and responses that "must not" be filed with the court until they are used in the

proceeding or the court orders otherwise). 

The parties are urged to not send letters to the court. If someone wants judicial action,

that person should follow the normal motion procedure or explain in his letter why he/she did

not do so. Additionally, cover letters with routine filings telling the clerk to file the documents

enclosed are unnecessary; the clerk knows what to do with pleadings, motions and requests that

come to the court in the mail or by hand-delivery. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 4, 2007 _______________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01628-SI Document 43 Filed 04/04/07 Page 2 of 2