ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE

(Docs. 41, 42, 43, 44)

SHEILA K. OBERTO, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff, Lacedric Johnson, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 14, 2014. On December 22, 2015, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 30.) On February 16, 2016, Plaintiff filed a memorandum of points and authorities (Doc. 37, pp. 1-22), his supporting declaration (id., at pp. 23-28), a statement of facts he asserts are undisputed (Doc. 38), and a response to Defendants' statement of undisputed facts (Doc. 39). Defendants filed their reply shortly thereafter. (Doc. 40.)

On February 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for judicial intervention requesting, among other things,1 that his opposition (which he believed had not previously been received) be accepted for filing (Doc. 43). He also submitted duplicate copies of the documents he filed in opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Docs. 41, 42).2 Instead of filing an opposition to Plaintiff's motion for intervention, Defendants filed a motion seeking to strike all three documents filed by Plaintiff on February 26, 2016 as improper surreplies. (Doc. 44.)

Two of the documents filed by Plaintiff which Defendants seek to have stricken as surreplies are exact duplicates of the documents filed by Plaintiff in opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment. (Docs. 41, 42 compare Docs. 37, 38, 39.) Plaintiff's motion for intervention shows that Plaintiff was under the mistaken belief that his opposition documents (Docs. 37, 38, 39) had not been received by the Court. Thus, Documents 41 and 42 are properly stricken as they are duplicative of Documents 37, 38, and 39. However, Document 43 is Plaintiff's motion for intervention and is not subject to being stricken from the record. (See Doc. 43.) It appears that Defendants typographically erred by including that document number in their motion to strike. (See Doc. 44.)

Defendants further request that their motion for summary judgment be deemed unopposed and submitted based on their assertion that Plaintiff's opposition is untimely. Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment on December 22, 2015. (Doc. 30.) Plaintiff requested and received an extension of time up to February 13, 2016, to file his opposition. (Docs. 32, 33.) Though Plaintiff's opposing documents were not received and filed on the docket of this case until February 18, 2016, his attached proofs of service indicate that he gave them to prison staff for mailing on February 1, 2016 — which makes them timely. See Caldwell v. Amend, 30 F.3d 1199, 1202 (9th Cir. 1994); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270 (1988).

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' motion to strike, filed on March 2, 2016, is granted in part and denied in part as follows:

IT IS SO ORDERED.