(PC) Evans v. Diaz

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: February 18, 2025
• Docket: 1:22-cv-00291
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID ARKEEM EVANS, Case No. 1:22-cv-00291-KES-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL DISPUTES AND 13 v. SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 14 DIAZ, et al., AS IMPROPER SURREPLIES

15 Defendants. (ECF Nos. 84, 85) 16 17 Plaintiff David Arkeem Evans (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 18 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on 19 Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against (1) Defendants E. Diaz and Ramirez for excessive 20 force in violation of the Eighth Amendment for spraying Plaintiff with OC spray; (2) Defendants 21 E. Diaz and Ramirez for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment for applying 22 excessively tight ankle restraints and dragging Plaintiff by the chain of the shackles into the 23 hallway; (3) Defendants Martins, E. Diaz, Ramirez, and Marin for excessive force in violation of 24 the Eighth Amendment for beating Plaintiff with batons in the hallway; (4) Defendants A. Aguilar 25 and E. Figueroa for failure to intervene in violation of the Eighth Amendment; (5) Defendant 26 Bradford for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth 27 Amendment for refusing to admit Plaintiff to a suicide crisis bed after Plaintiff swallowed two 28 razor blades with the intent of killing himself; and (6) Defendants Stanley, Arrozola, and Aguilar 1 for unconstitutional conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 2 On May 2, 2024, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that: 3 (1) Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims of excessive force against Defendants Diaz, Ramirez, 4 Martins, and Marin, and claim of failure to intervene against Defendants Aguilar and Figueroa, 5 are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994); and (2) Plaintiff’s claim of deliberate 6 indifference to serious medical needs against Defendant Bradford and claim of unconstitutional 7 conditions of confinement against Defendants Stanley, Arrozola, and Aguilar are not supported 8 by the undisputed facts. (ECF No. 63.) Following resolution of a discovery dispute and 9 subsequent extension of time, Plaintiff filed his opposition to the motion for summary judgment 10 on October 4, 2024. (ECF No. 80.) Defendants filed their reply brief on October 18, 2024. (ECF 11 No. 81.) With the filing of Plaintiff’s opposition and Defendants’ reply, the motion for summary 12 judgment is fully briefed and pending before the Court. Local Rule 230(l). 13 On February 12, 2025, Plaintiff submitted “Supplemental Disputes” and a “Supplemental 14 Brief in Opposition to Defendants’ Summary Judgment Motion.” (ECF Nos. 84, 85.) The Court 15 construes this filing as surreplies. 16 Neither the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor the Local Rules contemplate the filing of 17 a surreply. See Local Rule 230(l). No further briefing on Defendants’ motion for summary 18 judgment is permitted absent leave of Court. The Court did not grant Plaintiff leave to file any 19 surreply and the Court does not desire any further briefing on the motion. 20 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s surreplies, (ECF Nos. 84, 85), are HEREBY STRICKEN from the 21 record and Defendants’ motion for summary judgment will be addressed in due course. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23

24 Dated: February 18, 2025 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25

26 27 28