Roberson v. Singh, 2:14-cv-2302 WBS KJN P. (2016)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20160217745
Visitors: 13
Filed: Feb. 16, 2016
Latest Update: Feb. 16, 2016
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel. On February 8, 2016, plaintiff filed a notice of change of address and a "request for summary judgment response." (ECF No. 69.) Plaintiff has filed an opposition to the motion for summary judgment, and defendants have filed a reply. Local Rule 230(l) contemplates the filing of a motion, an opposition, and a reply. No further briefing is permitted absent order of the court. For example, wh
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel. On February 8, 2016, plaintiff filed a notice of change of address and a "request for summary judgment response." (ECF No. 69.) Plaintiff has filed an opposition to the motion for summary judgment, and defendants have filed a reply. Local Rule 230(l) contemplates the filing of a motion, an opposition, and a reply. No further briefing is permitted absent order of the court. For example, whe..
More
ORDER
KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel. On February 8, 2016, plaintiff filed a notice of change of address and a "request for summary judgment response." (ECF No. 69.) Plaintiff has filed an opposition to the motion for summary judgment, and defendants have filed a reply. Local Rule 230(l) contemplates the filing of a motion, an opposition, and a reply. No further briefing is permitted absent order of the court. For example, when a party has raised new arguments or presented new evidence in a reply to an opposition, the court may permit the other party to counter the new arguments or evidence. El Pollo Loco v. Hashim, 316 F.3d 1032, 1040-41 (9th Cir. 2003). Here, defendants' reply addressed the argument in plaintiff's opposition; it raised no new theories. Thus, no surreply or further response is required by the court. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's request (ECF No. 69) is denied.
Source: Leagle
