JOHNSON v. CO 1 LASKO

W.D. Pennsylvania

JOHNSON v. CO 1 LASKO

DecidedFebruary 3, 2022

Docket1:20-cv-00149

StatusUnknown

This text of JOHNSON v. CO 1 LASKO (JOHNSON v. CO 1 LASKO) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

JOHNSON v. CO 1 LASKO, (W.D. Pa. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ERIE DIVISION

STEFON JOHNSON JR., ) )

) 1:20-CV-00149-SPB Plaintiff, )

) vs. RICHARD A. LANZILLO ) UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ) C.O. 1 LESKO, CO 1 SIGWORTH, SGT. ) KEMP, SGT. MOOR, L.P.N. ANDRAKO, ) ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO CO 4 GILL, LT. HARDING, ) COMPEL PROPER SERVICE AND FOR INDIVIDUALLY AND IN THEIR ) LEAVE TO FILE A SUR RELPY BRIEF OFFICIAL CAPACITIES; C.O. 1 ) BOOHER, C.O. 1 WILLCOX, C.O. 1 ) ECF NO. 85 TERMINE, )

Defendants,

Before the Court is a motion filed by Plaintiff Stefon Johnson Jr. (“Johnson”) asking the Court to order the Defendants to serve documents to him directly at the state correctional institution where he is held and for leave to file a Reply to the Defendants’ Reply brief (Sur Reply Brief). As pertains the request for direct delivery of mail, the motion is DENIED. Pursuant to Department of Corrections Policy Statement DC-ADM 803, only mail from the Court or an inmate’s own attorney may be mailed to the inmate directly at the prison. All other mail, including mail from opposing counsel, must be processed through the Smart Communications processing facility. While the Court understands and shares Johnson’s frustration at the delays in receiving filings, the Court does not presently have the authority to order the prison to accept filings from defense counsel at the prison’s address. Should a mechanism to do so become available, the Court will permit Plaintiff to renew his motion at that time. Johnson’s motion for leave to file a Sur Reply brief is GRANTED. Johnson’s brief is due within twenty-one days of the date of this order, that is, on or before Thursday, February 24, 2022. Absent good cause, no request for an extension of this deadline will be granted. The Sur Reply brief shall not exceed five (5) pages. See Judge Lanzillo’s General Practices and Procedures Memorandum, available at https://www.pawd.uscourts.gov/sites/pawd/files/Lanzillo_ General Practice Procedures April 2 Further, the Court cautions Johnson that Sur Reply briefs should further elucidate the issues before the Court and not merely repeat his previous arguments. See Elgadi v. Ideal Development, LLC, 2021 WL 3662359, at *7 (E.D. Pa. July 30, 2021). SO ORDERED this 3rd day of February, 2022. “are 2p eT RICHARDA.LANZILLO ——<“—its UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ERIE DIVISION

STEFON JOHNSON JR., ) )

) 1:20-CV-00149-SPB Plaintiff, )

) vs. RICHARD A. LANZILLO ) UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ) C.O. 1 LESKO, CO 1 SIGWORTH, SGT. ) KEMP, SGT. MOOR, L.P.N. ANDRAKO, ) ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO CO 4 GILL, LT. HARDING, ) COMPEL PROPER SERVICE AND FOR INDIVIDUALLY AND IN THEIR ) LEAVE TO FILE A SUR RELPY BRIEF OFFICIAL CAPACITIES; C.O. 1 ) BOOHER, C.O. 1 WILLCOX, C.O. 1 ) ECF NO. 85 TERMINE, )

Defendants,

Before the Court is a motion filed by Plaintiff Stefon Johnson Jr. (“Johnson”) asking the Court to order the Defendants to serve documents to him directly at the state correctional institution where he is held and for leave to file a Reply to the Defendants’ Reply brief (Sur Reply Brief). As pertains the request for direct delivery of mail, the motion is DENIED. Pursuant to Department of Corrections Policy Statement DC-ADM 803, only mail from the Court or an inmate’s own attorney may be mailed to the inmate directly at the prison. All other mail, including mail from opposing counsel, must be processed through the Smart Communications processing facility. While the Court understands and shares Johnson’s frustration at the delays in receiving filings, the Court does not presently have the authority to order the prison to accept filings from defense counsel at the prison’s address. Should a mechanism to do so become available, the Court will permit Plaintiff to renew his motion at that time. Johnson’s motion for leave to file a Sur Reply brief is GRANTED. Johnson’s brief is due within twenty-one days of the date of this order, that is, on or before Thursday, February 24, 2022. Absent good cause, no request for an extension of this deadline will be granted. The Sur Reply brief shall not exceed five (5) pages. See Judge Lanzillo’s General Practices and Procedures Memorandum, available at https://www.pawd.uscourts.gov/sites/pawd/files/Lanzillo_ General Practice Procedures April 2 Further, the Court cautions Johnson that Sur Reply briefs should further elucidate the issues before the Court and not merely repeat his previous arguments. See Elgadi v. Ideal Development, LLC, 2021 WL 3662359, at *7 (E.D. Pa. July 30, 2021). SO ORDERED this 3rd day of February, 2022. “are 2p eT RICHARDA.LANZILLO ——<“—its UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

JOHNSON v. CO 1 LASKO, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-co-1-lasko-pawd-2022.