Opinion
2:14-cv-01426-JAD-CWH
06-23-2016
ROBIN M. LEE Plaintiff v. CLARK COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, et al., Defendants
Order Granting in Part Motion to Strike Unauthorized Surreply
(ECF No. 113)
In this civil-rights action, pro se inmate plaintiff Robin Lee alleges that, while he was detained at the CCDC, the jail ignored a court order to transfer him to the Lake's Crossing facility for a mental competency evaluation, resulting in his wrongful arrest and unconstitutional detention for 85 days before his state-court case was dismissed and he was transferred to federal custody on other charges. Cross-motions for summary judgment are pending. Although the rules of this court permit only a motion, response, and reply brief, Lee filed a "Response to Defendant Las Vegas Metro Police Dept's Reply (Doc. No. 110) [and] to Plaintiff's Opposition (Doc. No. 105) to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgement (Doc. No. 101)." Defendants move to strike the portion of this brief that qualifies as an unauthorized surreply. Although I decline the request to "strike" the brief under Rule 12(f) because that rule applies only to pleadings, not briefs, I will disregard the unauthorized surreply when evaluating the cross-motions for summary judgment.
ECF No. 101, 104.
ECF No. 112.
ECF No. 113.
Discussion
The rules of this court do not authorize the filing of a reply to a reply—better known as a "surreply." In fact, local rule 7-2 states that "Surreplies are not permitted without leave of court" and that "motions for leave to file a surreply are discouraged."
Lee did not seek leave of court before filing his reply to the defendant's reply brief, and I see no independent basis to permit it. The proper remedy is not to strike this brief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), however, because that rule only permits the striking of a pleading, and this brief is not a pleading. Nevertheless, to the extent that I can determine which portions of this brief constitute an unauthorized surreply, those portions will be disregarded in my evaluation of the cross-motions.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a) (defining litigation documents that qualify as pleadings under the Rules).
Conclusion
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants' Motion to Strike Surreply [ECF No. 113] is GRANTED in part; to the extent that the court can determine which portions of this brief [ECF No. 112] constitute an unauthorized surreply, those portions will be disregarded in the court's evaluation of the cross-motions for summary judgment.
Dated June 23, 2016.
/s/_________
Jennifer A. Dorsey
United States District Judge