Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01239/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01239-6/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

JONATHAN CODY,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFFREY BEARD, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:14-cv-01239-DAD-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO STRIKE

(Doc. No. 36)

On February 19, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge issued a findings and 

recommendations recommending that the court grant defendants’ motion for partial summary 

judgment. (Doc. No. 25.) On March 17, 2016, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and 

recommendation. (Doc. No. 27.) On March 28, 2016, defendants filed a response to plaintiff’s 

objections. (Doc. No. 28.) Plaintiff then filed a surreply on April 25, 2016. (Doc. No. 34.)

Currently before the court is defendants’ motion to strike plaintiff’s surreply. (Doc. No. 

36.) Defendants argue that plaintiff’s filing of a surreply violates Local Rule 304, which provides 

for objections to finding and recommendations and a response to those objections, but does not 

authorize the filing of a surreply. Furthermore, defendants note that the court did not request 

leave to file a surreply, nor did the court grant such leave.

Defendants are correct that neither the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor the Local 

Rules contemplate or authorize the filing of a surreply. Also, in this case the court did not 

Case 1:14-cv-01239-DAD-BAM Document 38 Filed 05/16/16 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

request, nor did plaintiff seek leave to file his unauthorized surreply. Nevertheless, in an 

abundance of caution, the court has exercised its discretion and considered plaintiff’s surreply in 

determining whether to adopt the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. However, 

the court found that nothing in plaintiff’s submissions, including his surreply, that undermined the 

magistrate judge’s analysis, and the findings and recommendations in question were adopted in 

full. (Doc. No. 37.) 

For the reasons set forth above, defendants’ motion to strike (Doc. No. 36) is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 13, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01239-DAD-BAM Document 38 Filed 05/16/16 Page 2 of 2