Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01966/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01966-4/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 

THOMAS JOHN HEILMAN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

TODD WASKO, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:12-cv-01966 AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. Plaintiff proceeds with a single claim under the First Amendment against defendant Todd 

Wasko. On March 28, 2013, defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) 

asserting that plaintiff failed to exhaust available administrative remedies. ECF No. 23. Plaintiff 

filed an opposition to the motion and defendant filed a reply. ECF Nos. 24, 25. Subsequently, 

plaintiff filed a second opposition which defendant has moved to strike as an unauthorized 

surreply. ECF Nos. 26, 27. 

 Under the local rule governing prisoner actions, proper briefing of a motion in this court 

consists of the moving party’s motion, the responding party’s opposition or statement of nonopposition, and the moving party’s optional reply to the opposition. See Local Rule 230(l). Here, 

in light of plaintiff’s pro se status, and because defendant will not suffer prejudice, the court will 

consider plaintiff’s second opposition to the motion to dismiss. Plaintiff is advised, however, that 

future unauthorized briefing will not be considered except with leave of court which may be 

Case 2:12-cv-01966-JAM-AC Document 28 Filed 07/11/13 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

sought by filing a motion for leave to submit supplemental briefing. Sua sponte, defendant is 

granted 14 days from the date of this order in which to reply to plaintiff’s second opposition, 

should defendant wish to do so. 

 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

1. Defendant’s motion to strike plaintiff’s unauthorized surreply (ECF No. 27) is 

DENIED; 

2. Defendant is granted 14 days from the date of this order in which to reply to plaintiff’s 

second opposition filed on May 3, 2013. 

DATED: July 10, 2013 

 

 ___________________________________ 

 ALLISON CLAIRE 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

AC:LS//heil.1966.motstrike.docx 

Case 2:12-cv-01966-JAM-AC Document 28 Filed 07/11/13 Page 2 of 2