Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06658/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06658-9/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

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

 Identified as Ramerez in the complaint.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM GARCIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDWARD ALMIEDA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-CV-06658-REC-SMS-P

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS SNOW,

NGUYEN, SMITH, AND RAMIREZ’S

MOTIONS TO STRIKE, AND GRANTING

DEFENDANT BRADISH’S MOTION TO

STRIKE IN PART

(Docs. 95, 97, 103, and 125)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS SNOW,

NGUYEN, SMITH, AND RAMIREZ’S

MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S

RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS, AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT

BRADISH’S MOTION TO STRIKE (AS TO

RESPONSE TO EVIDENTIARY

OBJECTIONS)

(Doc. 96 and 125)

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S

SURREPLIES AND ACCOMPANYING

DOCUMENTS, AND EXHIBIT 18

(Docs. 98, 100, 102, 120-122, 124, and 127)

Plaintiff William Garcia (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on

Plaintiff’s complaint,filedNovember 24, 2003, against Defendants Snow, Nguyen, Smith, Ramirez,1

Case 1:03-cv-06658-LJO -SMS Document 130 Filed 02/07/06 Page 1 of 3
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

 Identified as Vijaya in the complaint.

2

Bradish, and Katukota2 for acting with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs,

in violation of the Eighth Amendment. On August 12, 2005, Defendants Snow, Nguyen, Smith, and

Ramirez filed a motion for summary judgment. (Docs. 67-74.) Plaintiff filed an opposition on

September 14, 2005, and Defendants filed a reply on September 26, 2005. (Docs. 90-94.) Plaintiff

filed a surreply and accompanying documents on October 11, 2005, and Defendants moved to strike

the filings on October 12, 2005. (Docs. 95-100.) On October 13, 2005, Plaintiff filed a

supplemental declaration in support of his surreply, and Defendants moved to strike the declaration

on October 17, 2005. (Docs. 102-103.) Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendants’ motions to strike

on October 26, 2005. (Docs. 104, 106-109.) 

On November 14, 2005, Defendant Bradish, who is represented by separate counsel, filed

a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 111.) Plaintiff filed an opposition on November 30, 2005,

and Defendant Bradish filed a reply on December 9, 2005. (Docs. 112-119.) On January 9, 2006,

Plaintiff filed a surreply. (Docs. 120-124.) Defendant filed a motion to strike the surreply on

January 17, 2006. (Doc. 125.) Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendant’s motion to strike and

submitted a supplemental exhibit on January 26, 2006. (Docs. 126, 127.)

Plaintiff’s protestation that he has a right to respond to Defendants’ replies is incorrect.

Pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(m), Defendants’ motions for summary judgment were deemed

submitted upon the filing of their replies. Neither the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor the Local

Rules provide for the filing of a response to a reply (surreply). Although the Court has discretion

to seek a surreply from Plaintiff or grant Plaintiff leave to file a surreply, the Court did neither.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s surreplies will not be considered by the Court and shall be stricken from the

record. The Court will allow Plaintiff’s responses to Defendants’ evidentiary objections to remain

in the record for consideration by the Court when Defendants’ motions for summary judgment are

addressed. (Docs. 99, 123.)

///

///

Case 1:03-cv-06658-LJO -SMS Document 130 Filed 02/07/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Having considered the Defendants’ motions to strike, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motions to strike are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as

follows:

a. Defendants Snow, Nguyen, Smith, and Ramirez’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s

response to their evidentiary objections is DENIED (Doc. 96);

b. Defendants Snow, Nguyen, Smith, and Ramirez’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s

surreplies and supporting documents are GRANTED (Docs.95, 98, and 103);

c. Defendant Bradish’s motion to strike is DENIED as to Plaintiff’s response

to her evidentiary objections, but GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s surreply and

supporting documents (Doc. 125);

2. The following surreplies and supporting documents filed by Plaintiff are STRICKEN

FROM THE RECORD: 98, 100, 102, 120-122, 124; and 

3. Plaintiff’s supplemental exhibit, filed January 26, 2006, is STRICKEN (Doc. 127).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 7, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06658-LJO -SMS Document 130 Filed 02/07/06 Page 3 of 3