Opinion
3:11-cv-00067-LRH-VPC
04-19-2013
KENNETH HIBBLER, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF NEVADA, et. al., Defendants.
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF(S): NONE APPEARING COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT(S): NONE APPEARING
MINUTES OF THE COURT
PRESENT: THE HONORABLE VALERIE P. COOKE, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEPUTY CLERK: LISA MANN REPORTER: NONE APPEARING COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF(S): NONE APPEARING COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT(S): NONE APPEARING
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS:
Before the court is defendant Rexwinkle's "motion to strike plaintiffs response to defendant's reply in support of motion to dismiss" (#74). Plaintiff did not file an opposition. Defendant Rexwinkle asks the court to strike plaintiff's response ("sur-reply") (#73) to defendant's reply in support of her unenumerated 12(b) motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, motion for summary judgment (#56) on the grounds that this document does not comport with Local Rule ("LR") 7-2.
Refers to the court's docket numbers.
LR 7-2 provides for the filing of a motion, an opposition, and a reply. Defendant Rexwinkle is correct that LR 7-2 does not provide for the filing of a sur-reply or supplemental brief, and plaintiff did not seek leave of the court to do so. However, the court notes that plaintiff is a pro se litigant who did not file a reply to his own motion for summary judgment (#55). Accordingly, the court will exercise its discretion and consider plaintiff's sur-reply (#73) in the resolution of this matter. See Spurlock v. F.B.I., 69 F.3d 1010, 1016 (9th Cir. 1995) (district court possesses inherent authority over the administration of its business).
Defendant Rexwinkle's motion to strike (#74) is hereby DENIED. The court will consider plaintiff's sur-reply (#73).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK
By: __________
Deputy Clerk