Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02661/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02661-6/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

BERLAN LYNELL DICEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

T. COBB, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-2661 TLN CKD P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of civil 

rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. There are two motions for summary judgment pending with the 

court; one filed by defendants Betti and Hood and one filed by defendant Griffith. The motions 

were submitted to the court on July 22, 2016 and July 28, 2016, respectively, when defendants 

filed their reply briefs. 

On August 9, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion asking that the court compel defendants to turn 

over certain documents to plaintiff so that plaintiff could use those documents as exhibits to surreplies concerning the two pending motions for summary judgment. Because sur-replies are not 

permitted under Local Rule 230(l), and plaintiff fails in his motion to identify any good reason for 

permitting sur-replies, this motion will be denied.

Shortly after plaintiff filed his motion to compel, and without seeking leave to do so, 

plaintiff actually filed sur-replies to the pending motions for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 46 

Case 2:14-cv-02661-TLN-CKD Document 57 Filed 12/02/16 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

and 49. As there does not appear to be any reason to deviate from Local Rule 230(l), the surreplies will be stricken.

Finally, plaintiff asks that the court sanction counsel for defendants Betti and Hood under 

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for portions of their response to plaintiff’s motion 

to compel. The court declines to impose any sanctions under Rule 11, as plaintiff’s motion to 

compel is frivolous. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s August 9, 2016 motion to compel (ECF No. 45) is denied;

2. The sur-replies filed by plaintiff on August 22, 2016 (ECF No. 46) and September 6, 

2016 (ECF No. 49) are stricken. 

3. Plaintiff’s September 22, 2106 motion for sanctions (ECF No. 53) is denied.

Dated: December 1, 2016

1

dice2661.mtc

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:14-cv-02661-TLN-CKD Document 57 Filed 12/02/16 Page 2 of 2