Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00293/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00293-12/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD F. MARTINEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

K. ALLISON, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:11-cv-00293-LJO-DLB PC

ORDER STRIKING SURREPLY

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO FILE SURREPLY

(ECF Nos. 80 & 81)

Plaintiff Ronald F. Martinez, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on February 18, 2011. Pending before the 

Court is Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 64.) On October 18, 2013, 

Plaintiff filed a surreply along with a motion to file a surreply. (ECF Nos. 80 & 81.)

Parties do not have the right to file surreplies and motions are deemed submitted when the 

time to reply has expired. Local Rule 230(l). The Court generally views motions for leave to file 

a surreply with disfavor. Hill v. England, No. CVF05869 REC TAG, 2005 WL 3031136, at *1 

(E.D. Cal. 2005) (citing Fedrick v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 366 F.Supp.2d 1190, 1197 (N.D. 

Ga. 2005)). However, district courts have the discretion to either permit or preclude a surreply. 

See U.S. ex rel. Meyer v. Horizon Health Corp., 565 F.3d 1195, 1203 (9th Cir. 2009) (district 

court did not abuse discretion in refusing to permit “inequitable surreply”); JG v. Douglas County 

School Dist., 552 F.3d 786, 803 n.14 (9th Cir. 2008) (district court did not abuse discretion in 

denying leave to file surreply where it did not consider new evidence in reply); Provenz v. Miller, 

Case 1:11-cv-00293-LJO-DLB Document 85 Filed 03/14/14 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

102 F.3d 1478, 1483 (9th Cir. 1996) (new evidence in reply may not be considered without giving 

the non-movant an opportunity to respond). Plaintiff requests to file a surreply to address new 

evidence brought up in Defendants’ reply. To the extent that Defendants did bring up new 

evidence, the Court did not consider such evidence in ruling on the motion for summary judgment.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s surreply is STRICKEN from the record; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion to file a surreply is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 14, 2014 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

3b142a

Case 1:11-cv-00293-LJO-DLB Document 85 Filed 03/14/14 Page 2 of 2