(PC) Crane v. Lopez

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: June 29, 2023
• Docket: 1:22-cv-00922
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD JOSEPH CRANE, Case No. 1:22-cv-00922-ADA-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER STRIKING IMROPER PLEADING 13 v. (Doc. No. 16) 14 G. LOPEZ, ET. AL., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s second reply filed on October 21, 2022. (Doc. No. 19 16). Local Rule 230(l) of the Eastern District of California authorizes in prisoner actions the 20 filing of a motion, an opposition, and a reply. Plaintiff filed a reply in response to Defendant’s 21 opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to remand on October 3, 2022. (Doc. No. 15). Thus, the filing of 22 a second reply is not authorized. The Court initially construed the second reply as a supplemental 23 reply. (See Doc. No. 22). Upon further review of the second reply, however, the Court cannot 24 construe the second reply as a supplemental reply because it does not inform the Court of new 25 facts or newly decided case law that is relevant to the dispute before it. Myers v. Freed, No. CV- 26 19-05683-PHX-SMB, 2020 WL 6048327, at *1 (D. Ariz. Oct. 13, 2020), aff'd, No. 20-17120, 27 2021 WL 3783098 (9th Cir. Aug. 26, 2021) (notice of supplemental authority is to inform court 28 of new judicial opinion); see also Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP v. Rubinstein, 2009 U.S. 1 | Dist. LEXIS 104619, at *3, 2009 WL 3459741 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 22, 2009). 2 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 3 The Clerk of Court shall strike Plaintiff’s improper pleading (Doc. No. 16) from the 4 | record. 5 ° | Dated: __June 29, 2023 Wiha Th. Doareh Zacks 7 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28