Opinion
1:22-cv-00922-ADA-HBK (PC)
06-29-2023
RICHARD JOSEPH CRANE, Plaintiff, v. G. LOPEZ, ET. AL., Defendants.
ORDER STRIKING IMROPER PLEADING (Doc. No. 16)
HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's second reply filed on October 21, 2022. (Doc. No. 16). Local Rule 230(1) of the Eastern District of California authorizes in prisoner actions the filing of a motion, an opposition, and a reply. Plaintiff filed a reply in response to Defendant's opposition to Plaintiff's motion to remand on October 3, 2022. (Doc. No. 15). Thus, the filing of a second reply is not authorized. The Court initially construed the second reply as a supplemental reply. (See Doc. No. 22). Upon further review of the second reply, however, the Court cannot construe the second reply as a supplemental reply because it does not inform the Court of new facts or newly decided case law that is relevant to the dispute before it. Myers v. Freed, No. CV-19-05683-PHX-SMB, 2020 WL 6048327, at *1 (D. Ariz. Oct. 13, 2020), aff'd, No. 20-17120, 2021 WL 3783098 (9th Cir. Aug. 26, 2021) (notice of supplemental authority is to inform court of new judicial opinion); see also Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP v. Rubinstein, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104619, at *3, 2009 WL 3459741 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 22, 2009).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
The Clerk of Court shall strike Plaintiff's improper pleading (Doc. No. 16) from the record.