Burnett v. Miranda

Full title: ESTER BURNETT, Plaintiff, v. R. MIRANDA, et al., Defendants.

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Jan 14, 2015

2:13-cv-1239 CKD P (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2015)

Opinion

ESTER BURNETT, Plaintiff, v. R. MIRANDA, et al., Defendants. No. 2:13-cv-1239 CKD P United States District Court, Eastern District of California January 14, 2015

          ORDER

          CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff has filed a request for an extension of time to respond to defendants' reply briefs¹regarding their pending motion for summary judgment. The court normally does not permit the filing of sur-replies. See Local Rule 230(1). There does not appear to be any reason to deviate from that rule here. Therefore, plaintiffs request will be denied.

1 A reply brief was filed on behalf of defendant Miranda on November 10, 2014. ECF No. 69. The remaining defendants filed theirs on November 7, 2014. ECF No. 64.

         Also, plaintiff has filed a request for an extension of time to respond to defendants' motion to strike (ECF No. 67). The court construes the document filed by plaintiff on January 8, 2015 (ECF No. 71) to include a response to the motion to strike. Good cause appearing, plaintiffs response will be deemed timely. ///// /////

         Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

         1. Plaintiffs request for an extension of time (ECF No. 70) to respond to defendants' reply briefs regarding their pending motion for summary judgment is denied.

         2. Plaintiffs request for an extension of time to file an opposition to defendants' motion to strike (ECF No. 67) is granted. The opposition filed by plaintiff on January 8, 2015 is deemed timely.