(PS) Wayne v. Sierra County

Opinion

RICHARD WAYNE, et al., No. 2:25-cv-1113-DAD-CKD (PS) Plaintiffs, v. ORDER SIERRA COUNTY, et al., Defendants.

Plaintiffs Richard Wayne and Michal Mickey Wayne proceed without counsel on their first amended complaint (“FAC”) naming 22 defendants and bringing claims arising from issues involving their residence in the Sierra Brooks Subdivision in Sierra County, California. (ECF No. 51.) Several of the defendants have filed motions to dismiss, some of which are still being briefed. On July 22, 2025, plaintiffs filed a motion to supplement the record stating they seek to present “supplemental evidence… necessary to fully represent [their] claim and rebut statements made by [defense counsel].” (ECF No. 101 at 3.) Plaintiffs state they are presenting the evidence pursuant to Rule 404(b)(2) and 406 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (id. at 7), but the court understands plaintiffs to be referring to the Federal Rules of Evidence. Plaintiffs’ motion to supplement the record is procedurally improper and additionally unnecessary to the extent that plaintiffs do not have any burden to submit evidence in support of their claims at this time. In evaluating whether the FAC states a claim on which relief may be granted, for example, the court will accept as true the allegations in the complaint and construe the allegations in the light most favorable to plaintiffs. See Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 (9th Cir. 1989). For briefing of motions to dismiss, this court’s Local Rules provide for a motion, an opposition, and a reply. See Local Rule 230(m). Neither the Local Rules nor the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide the right to file a sur-reply or a second opposition to a motion. Because plaintiffs do not have any burden to submit evidence in support of their claims at this time, and because they have not shown a valid reason for briefing on the motions to dismiss beyond what is provided by the court’s rules, the motion to supplement the record will be denied. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion to supplement the record (ECF No. 101) DENIED. Dated: July 28, 2025 fed) / dha MIG f- A. CAROLYNK.DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ] 8, wayn25ev1113.101