Hillhouse v. Ayers

Full title: DANNIE RAY HILLHOUSE, Petitioner, v. ROBERT AYERS, JR., Warden of San…

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

Date published: Aug 31, 2007

No. CIV S-03-0142 MCE CMK P, DEATH PENALTY CASE (E.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2007)

Opinion

No. CIV S-03-0142 MCE CMK P, DEATH PENALTY CASE.

August 31, 2007

ORDER

CRAIG KELLISON, Magistrate Judge

Before the court is respondent's application to file a surreply to petitioner's response (Doc. 132). On April 18, 2007 the undersigned issued findings and recommendations recommending that respondent's motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part. In response to the findings and recommendations issued, both parties have filed objections and replies to the objections.

Specifically, respondent filed objections on April 26, 2007 (Doc. 104). Petitioner then filed a response to respondent's objections on April 29, 2007 (Doc. 108). Respondent then requested, and was granted permission, to file a surreply, which was filed on May 16, 2007 (Doc. 112). Petitioner then requested, and was granted, permission to file a surresponse and errata, which were filed on May 22, 2007 (Docs. 123 124). In addition, petitioner filed objections to the findings and recommendations on April 29, 2007 (D0c. 107). Respondent filed a response to petitioner's objections, following an order granting an extension of time, on June 5, 2007 (Doc. 128). Petitioner then filed a reply to respondent's response on August 5, 2007 (Doc. 131). Now, respondent has filed a request to be allowed to file a surreply to petitioner's reply (Doc. 132). Petitioner has also filed a response to this surreply (Doc. 133).

The court has discretion to make such orders it may deem appropriate in the interests of justice and case management. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 1-102(d). As such, the undersigned finds that the parties have been given substantial leeway in briefing the court in regards to the findings and recommendations. Nevertheless, respondent's application for filing a surreply (Doc. 132) will be granted. The Clerk of the Court will be directed to file the surreply attached to the application. In addition, petitioner's response to respondent's surreply (Doc. 133) will likewise be allowed. The parties are cautioned, however, that further briefings on this issue are discouraged. The court considers this matter fully briefed and submitted.

Good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Respondent's request to file a surreply (Doc. 132) is granted;

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file the surreply, which is attached to respondent's application (doc. 132) as Attachment A; and

3. Petitioner's response (Doc. 133) is allowed.