Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00712/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00712-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

Currently pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss. On September 6, 

2016, the Court vacated the hearing on Defendants’ motion and took the matter under submission. 

See Doc. No. 17. In that order, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ request for the Court to consider 

recent authority, and also permitted Defendants to respond to the new authority. See id. On 

September 9, 2016, Defendants’ filed a response. See Doc. No. 18. The same day, Plaintiffs’ 

filed a request to submit a sur-reply to Defendants’ response. See Doc. No. 19. Plaintiffs request 

the opportunity to respond to Defendants, and also object to Defendants’ raising the issue of 

qualified immunity. See id.

Plaintiffs have submitted recent authority for consideration, and Defendants responded. 

The Court does not find that further briefing on the recent authority would be helpful at this point, 

and thus, will deny the request to file a sur-reply. Also, the Court will not consider the issue of 

qualified immunity at this time, as that issue was not raised as part of Defendants’ motion.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ request to file a sur-reply is 

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 15, 2016 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

MELISSA M. NEYLON and SHAWN P. 

NEYLON,

Plaintiffs

v.

COUNTY OF INYO, INYO COUNTY 

SHERIFF’S OFFICE, BILL LUTZE, 

DOUGLAS RICHARDS, and DOES 1 to 

50,

Defendants

CASE NO. 1:16-CV-0712 AWI JLT 

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO FILE 

A SUR-REPLY

(Doc. No. 19)
123456789

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2