ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS AS IMPERMISSIBLE FILINGS/SURREPLIES Docs. 81, 82

GARY S. AUSTIN, Magistrate Judge.

I. BACKGROUND

James R. Willis ("Plaintiff") is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens vs. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Plaintiff filed this case on September 28, 2009. (Doc. 1.) This case proceeded on Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint, filed on July 8, 2011, against defendant Devere ("Defendant") for failure to protect Plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment.1 (Doc. 24.) On May 20, 2013, the court dismissed this action with prejudice, pursuant to the parties' Stipulation for Dismissal and Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 64.)

On July 22, 2013, Plaintiff filed an Expedited Motion to Enforce Settlement. (Doc. 66.) On August 6, 2013, Defendant filed an opposition to the motion. (Doc. 68.) On August 26, 2013, Plaintiff filed a reply to the opposition. (Doc. 71.) On January 15, 2014, the court entered findings and recommendations, recommending that Plaintiff's motion be denied. (Doc. 78.) On February 6, 2014, Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. 79.) On February 13, 2014, Defendant filed a reply to Plaintiff's objections. (Doc. 80.) The findings and recommendations have been submitted to the District Judge.

On March 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to strike portions of Defendant's reply, and a motion for imposition of sanctions upon counsel for Defendant for statements in the reply and for conduct during settlement negotiations. (Docs. 81, 82.) The court construes Plaintiff's motions as impermissible filings or surreplies.

II. SURREPLY

A surreply, or sur-reply, is an additional reply to a motion filed after the motion has already been fully briefed. USLegal.com, http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/sur-reply/ (last visited December 31, 2013). 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. A district court may allow a surreply to be filed, but only "where a valid reason for such additional briefing exists, such as where the movant raises new arguments in its reply brief." Hill v. England, 2005 WL 3031136, *1 (E.D.Cal. Nov. 8, 2005).

Plaintiff's motions filed on March 3, 2014 seek to respond to Defendant's reply to Plaintiff's objections. The court's findings and recommendations permitted the parties to file only (1) "written objections" to the findings and recommendations within thirty days, and (2) "repl[ies] to the objections" within ten days after service of the objections. (Doc. 78 at 4:22-26.) The court neither requested further responses nor granted a request by Plaintiff to file one. Plaintiff has not shown good cause for the court to allow a further response at this juncture. Therefore, Plaintiff's motions shall be stricken from the record as impermissible responses to Defendant's reply to the objections.

Plaintiff's motions also seek to raise new arguments with respect to Plaintiff's Expedited Motion to Enforce Settlement. Plaintiff's Expedited Motion to Enforce Settlement, filed on July 22, 2013, was fully briefed and was submitted on the record under Local Rule 230(l) on August 26, 2013, when Plaintiff filed his reply to Defendant's opposition. (Doc. 68.) The Court neither requested a surreply nor granted a request by Plaintiff to file one. Plaintiff has not shown good cause for the court to allow him to file a surreply at this juncture. Therefore, Plaintiff's motions filed on March 3, 2014 shall also be stricken from the record as impermissible surreplies.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motions filed on March 3, 2014, are STRICKEN from the Court's record.

IT IS SO ORDERED.