Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01264/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01264-12/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

L. GONZALEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv–01264-AWI-SMS PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

FILE A LATE RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’

UNDISPUTED FACTS AND STRIKING

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DISPUTED

FACTS

(ECF Nos. 73, 74)

Plaintiff Anthony Johnson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on the

complaint filed July 21, 2009, against Defendants L. Gonzales and A. Murrieta for excessive force

1

in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 1.) On June 6, 2011, findings and

recommendations issued recommending granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and

notifying the parties that objections were to be filed within thirty days. (ECF No. 70.) On July 8,

2011, Plaintiff filed a motion to file a late response to Defendant’s undisputed facts in their motion

for summary judgment and a response to Defendants disputed facts. Plaintiff had the opportunity to

oppose Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and did file an opposition. The Local Rules

provide for a motion, an opposition, and a reply. Neither the Local Rules nor the Federal Rules

provide the right to file a surreply, and the Court neither requested one nor granted a request on the

behalf of Plaintiff to file one. Defendant’s motion was deemed submitted upon the filing of the

The Court will refer to Defendant as Gonzales, the spelling used in Defendants’ motion.

1

1

Case 1:09-cv-01264-BAM Document 75 Filed 07/27/11 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

reply. Local Rule 230(m). The arguments of the parties have been considered and a findings and

recommendation issued. Plaintiff is not now entitled to supplement his opposition to Defendants’

motion for summary judgment. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to file a late response to Defendants undisputed facts is

HEREBYDENIED and the response to Defendants’ undisputed facts is HEREBYSTRICKEN from

the record. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 26, 2011 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:09-cv-01264-BAM Document 75 Filed 07/27/11 Page 2 of 2