(PC) Nuno v. Eslick

Opinion

GUILLERMO NUNO, No. 1:21-cv-00769-KES-SAB (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SUR-REPLY v. (ECF No. 110) D. ESLICK, et al. Defendants. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 8, 2024, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 82.) After receiving three extensions of time, Plaintiff filed an opposition on August 2, 2024, and Defendants filed a reply on September 20, 2024. (ECF Nos. 106, 109.) Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave and copy of a sur-reply, filed October 7, 2024.1 (ECF No. 110.) Defendants did not file an opposition and the time to do has passed. Local Rule 230(l). The Local Rules provide for a motion, an opposition, and a reply. See Local Rule 230(l). There is nothing in the Local Rules or the Federal Rules that provides the right to file a sur-reply. The court generally views motions for leave to file a sur-reply with disfavor. Hill v. England, No.

1 The sur-reply is attached to Plaintiff’s motion. (ECF No. 110.) CVFO05869 REC TAG, 2005 WL 3031136, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2005) (citation omitted). However, district courts have the discretion to either permit or preclude a sur-reply. See JG v. Douglas County School Dist., 552 F.3d 786, 803 n.14 (9th Cir. 2008) (district court did not abuse discretion in denying leave to file a sur-reply where it did not consider new evidence in reply). In light of Plaintiff's pro se status and the fact that in their reply Defendants have filed objections and moved to strike several pieces of evidence submitted in support of Plaintiffs opposition, the Court will grant Plaintiff's motion to file a sur-reply which will be considered when ruling on Defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment. IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee Dated: _ November 7, 2024 STANLEY A. BOONE United States Magistrate Judge