Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01461/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01461-26/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADAM JAY STONE,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. PFEIFFER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:21-cv-01461-ADA-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO FILE A “SURREPLY” AS 

UNNECESSARY

(ECF No. 111)

Plaintiff Adam Jay Stone is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to file a “sur-reply” to Defendants’ 

opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, filed August 18, 2023.

Local Rule 230(l) provides, in pertinent part:

Opposition, if any, to the granting of the motion shall be served and filed by the 

responding party not more than twenty-one (21) days after the date of service of the 

motion. A responding party who has no opposition to the granting of the motion shall 

serve and file a statement to that effect, specifically designating the motion in question. 

Failure of the responding party to file an opposition or to file a statement of no opposition 

may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion and may result 

in the imposition of sanctions. The moving party may, not more than fourteen (14) days 

after the opposition has been filed in CM/ECF, serve and file a reply to the opposition. All 

such motions will be deemed submitted when the time to reply has expired.

Case 1:21-cv-01461-SAB Document 112 Filed 08/21/23 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

Here, Plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions on July 25, 2023, and Defendants filed an 

opposition on August 7, 2023. (ECF Nos. 107, 110.) Plaintiff’s reply was due 14 days (plus 3 

days for mailing) of the August 7, 2023, opposition. Plaintiff’s filed his reply (inappropriately 

labeled as a sur-reply) on August 14, 2023 (mailbox rule). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for 

permission to file a “sur-reply” is denied as unnecessary, and Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is 

submitted and a ruling will be issued in due course. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 21, 2023 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-01461-SAB Document 112 Filed 08/21/23 Page 2 of 2