(PC) Perrotte v. Johnson ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEFFREY P. PERROTTE, ) Case No. 1:15-cv-00026-LJO-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO 13 v. ) FILE A SURREPLY 14 STACEY JOHNSON, et al., ) [ECF No. 201] ) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 ) 17 Plaintiff Jeffrey P. Perrotte is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 On October 4, 2019, Plaintiff filed a request to file a surreply. Parties do not have the right to 20 file surreplies and motions are deemed submitted when the time to reply has expired. Local Rule 21 230(l). The Court generally views motions for leave to file a surreply with disfavor. Hill v. England, 22 No. CVF05869 REC TAG, 2005 WL 3031136, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2005) (citing Fedrick v. Mercedes- 23 Benz USA, LLC, 366 F.Supp.2d 1190, 1197 (N.D. Ga. 2005)). However, district courts have the 24 discretion to either permit or preclude a surreply. See U.S. ex rel. Meyer v. Horizon Health Corp., 565 25 F.3d 1195, 1203 (9th Cir. 2009) (district court did not abuse discretion in refusing to permit 26 “inequitable surreply”); JG v. Douglas County School Dist., 552 F.3d 786, 803 n.14 (9th Cir. 2008) 27 (district court did not abuse discretion in denying leave to file surreply where it did not consider new 28 evidence in reply); Provenz v. Miller, 102 F.3d 1478, 1483 (9th Cir. 1996) (new evidence in reply may 1 || not be considered without giving the non-movant an opportunity to respond). Inasmuch as on Octobe 2 2019, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations recommending that Defendant’s motion fo 3 |]|summary judgment be denied, Plaintiff's motion to file a surreply is denied as moot. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. Al fe 6 |! Dated: _ October 8, 2019 OF 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28