Filed: Dec. 10, 2014
Latest Update: Dec. 10, 2014
Summary: ORDER C.W. HOFFMAN, Jr., Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the Court on what has been designated as a Motion to Strike (#127), filed by Plaintiff on December 8, 2014. The filing is not a new motion, but a surreply associated with Plaintiff's pending motion to strike (#121), filed on September 23, 2014. The Court recognizes that Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis and is litigating the case pro se, and has repeated acknowledged the need to broadly construe pleadings and other
Summary: ORDER C.W. HOFFMAN, Jr., Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the Court on what has been designated as a Motion to Strike (#127), filed by Plaintiff on December 8, 2014. The filing is not a new motion, but a surreply associated with Plaintiff's pending motion to strike (#121), filed on September 23, 2014. The Court recognizes that Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis and is litigating the case pro se, and has repeated acknowledged the need to broadly construe pleadings and other f..
More
ORDER
C.W. HOFFMAN, Jr., Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the Court on what has been designated as a Motion to Strike (#127), filed by Plaintiff on December 8, 2014. The filing is not a new motion, but a surreply associated with Plaintiff's pending motion to strike (#121), filed on September 23, 2014.
The Court recognizes that Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis and is litigating the case pro se, and has repeated acknowledged the need to broadly construe pleadings and other filings submitted by Plaintiff. Nevertheless, even pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir.1987); see also Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th Cir.1986) ("pro se litigants in the ordinary civil case should not be treated more favorable than parties with attorneys of record"); Carter v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir.1986) (pro se litigants expected to abide by the rules of the court in which litigation proceeds).
Local Rule 7-2 governs briefing and provides for a motion, response, and reply. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, the rules do not permit surreplies. Courts in this district routinely interpret Local Rule 7-2 to permit the filing of a surreply only by leave of court "and only to address new matters raised in a reply to which the party would otherwise be unable to respond." Kavnick v. City of Reno, 2008 WL 873085 (D. Nev.) (emphasis omitted). Surreplies are highly disfavored as they typically constitute an improper attempt by a party to have the last words on an issue. Avery v. Barsky, 2013 WL 1663612 (D. Nev.) (citation omitted). The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's submission (#127) and finds that it is an improper surreply and should be stricken. The parties arguments on Plaintiff's pending motion to strike (#121) have been set forth in prior briefing. The motion is currently under consideration and an order will issue shortly. Plaintiff's submission does not address new matters, but restates the same arguments already made. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion (#127) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall strike the filing from the record.
