(PC) Arzaga v. Santiago

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: March 22, 2022
• Docket: 2:18-cv-00313
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL ARZAGA, No. 2:18-cv-0313 KJM KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 E. SANTIAGO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel. On March 7, 2022, plaintiff filed 18 a motion seeking leave to file a sur-reply to defendants’ reply filed in connection with defendants’ 19 motion for judgment on the pleadings. 20 The Local Rules do not authorize the routine filing of a sur-reply. Nevertheless, a district 21 court may allow a sur-reply “where a valid reason for such additional briefing exists, such as 22 where the movant raises new arguments in its reply brief.” Hill v. England, 2005 WL 3031136, at 23 *1 (E.D. Cal. 2005); accord Norwood v. Byers, 2013 WL 3330643, at *3 (E.D. Cal. 2013) 24 (granting the motion to strike the sur-reply because “defendants did not raise new arguments in 25 their reply that necessitated additional argument from plaintiff, plaintiff did not seek leave to file 26 a sur-reply before actually filing it, and the arguments in the sur-reply do not alter the analysis 27 below”), adopted, 2013 WL 5156572 (E.D. Cal. 2013). 28 //// ] Here, defendants did not raise new arguments in the reply brief, and it appears plaintiff 2 || merely seeks another opportunity to oppose defendants’ motion. Therefore, the undersigned 3 || declines to grant plaintiff an opportunity to file a sur-reply. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion (ECF No. 116) is denied. 5 | Dated: March 22, 2022 Foci) Aharon 7 KENDALL J. NE Jarva0313.sun UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28