Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01180/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01180-11/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

ISRAEL MEZA,

Plaintiff,

v.

DIRECTOR OF CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-01180-LJO-NEW (DLB) PC

ORDER STRIKING SURREPLY

(Doc. 38)

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SUBMIT

FURTHER BRIEFING

(Doc. 36)

I. Order

A. Filing of Surreply

On November 8, 2006, defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff filed an opposition

on March 20, 2007, and defendants filed a reply on March 30, 2007, at which time the motion

was deemed submitted. Local Rule 78-230(m). On May 1, 2007, plaintiff filed a surreply. 

Neither the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor the Local Rules provides for a surreply, and

plaintiff’s surreply shall not be considered by the court.

B. Order Requiring Further Briefing

In their motion to dismiss, defendants stated, “In his appeal, the inmate must identify each

individual against whom he raises a grievance, specifically state each claim against these

individuals, and identify each form of relief desired. Failure to identify each individual, each

claim, or the form of relief sought results in a failure to exhaust those issues through the

administrative appeal process. These requirements are codified in the governing rules. Cal.

Case 1:05-cv-01180-OWW -LJO Document 39 Filed 05/23/07 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

Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.” (Doc. 29, 5:7-11.) Because a review of section 3084 does not

support this statement, defendants were ordered to submit further briefing, with evidence,

supporting the statement. Defendants complied with the court’s order on April 25, 2007.

Defendants concede that section 3084 does not impose such specific requirements, and

contend that the error was made due to the use of previously drafted arguments that were not

independently checked for accuracy. The court trusts that the Attorney General’s Office has

already taken whatever steps are necessary to purge this inaccurate statement of the law from

their system. Any further use of it will not result in as lenient a response as this occurrence. 

C. Conclusion

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s surreply, filed May 1, 2007, is STRICKEN from the record; and

2. The order requiring further briefing, filed April 12, 2007, is DISCHARGED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 23, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01180-OWW -LJO Document 39 Filed 05/23/07 Page 2 of 2