(PC) Arzaga v. Santiago

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DANIEL ARZAGA, No. 2:18-cv-0313 KJM KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER E. SANTIAGO, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel. On March 7, 2022, plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to file a sur-reply to defendants’ reply filed in connection with defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings.

20 The Local Rules do not authorize the routine filing of a sur-reply. Nevertheless, a district court may allow a sur-reply “where a valid reason for such additional briefing exists, such as where the movant raises new arguments in its reply brief.” Hill v. England, 2005 WL 3031136, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2005); accord Norwood v. Byers, 2013 WL 3330643, at *3 (E.D. Cal. 2013) (granting the motion to strike the sur-reply because “defendants did not raise new arguments in their reply that necessitated additional argument from plaintiff, plaintiff did not seek leave to file a sur-reply before actually filing it, and the arguments in the sur-reply do not alter the analysis below”), adopted, 2013 WL 5156572 (E.D. Cal. 2013).

28 //// ] Here, defendants did not raise new arguments in the reply brief, and it appears plaintiff || merely seeks another opportunity to oppose defendants’ motion. Therefore, the undersigned || declines to grant plaintiff an opportunity to file a sur-reply.

4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion (ECF No. 116) is denied.

5 | Dated: March 22, 2022 Foci) Aharon 7 KENDALL J. NE Jarva0313.sun UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1]