UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 15, 2013
K. GERSTEL, DEFENDANT.
ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF'S SURREPLY (ECF No. 113.)
Plaintiff Ferdinand Reynolds ("Plaintiff") is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Following resolution of the parties cross-motions for summary judgment, this action is proceeding on Plaintiff's claim that Defendant Gerstel was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's dental needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment in extracting a tooth on August 18, 2008. (ECF No. 67.)
On July 25, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for a hearing due to willful and intentional destruction of his evidence. (ECF No. 103.) On July 30, 2012, a telephonic hearing was conducted by the district court judge; and this action was referred to the magistrate judge for determination if any action needed to be taken due to Plaintiff's allegations regarding his missing property and evidence. (ECF No. 104.) Defendant filed an opposition to Plaintiff's motion on August 22, 2012. (ECF No. 106.) Plaintiff filed a reply on September 12, 2012, and a supplement to his reply on September 24, 2012. (ECF Nos. 107, 108.) On December 17, 2012, Plaintiff filed a declaration. (ECF No. 109.) On February 11, 2013, Plaintiff filed a surreply labeled "Judicial Notice on Pending Fact Finding Hearing." (ECF No. 113.)
The Local Rules provide for a motion, an opposition, and a reply. Neither the Local Rules nor the Federal Rules provide the right to file a surreply, and the Court neither requested one nor granted a request on the behalf of Plaintiff to file one.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's surreply, filed February 11, 2013, is STRICKEN from the Court's record.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.