195 F. Supp. 3d 1131
E.D. Cal.2016Background
- Felipe Garcia, a pro se state prisoner, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and opposed defendants’ summary judgment motion filed October 1, 2015.
- Garcia filed an initial opposition and defendants replied; the reply period ended and the motion was deemed submitted under Local Rule 230(c).
- Garcia then filed an unauthorized surreply on November 12, 2015; the Magistrate Judge struck the surreply on May 18, 2016.
- On May 18, 2016, Garcia moved for reconsideration of the order striking the surreply and separately sought leave to file a surreply to address alleged new arguments/evidence in defendants’ reply.
- The district court reviewed standards for Rule 59(e) reconsideration and the court’s discretion to permit surreplies, then concluded Garcia presented no new facts, law, or valid basis to disturb the prior order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should reconsider the order striking Garcia’s surreply | Court erred in striking the surreply; asks for another chance to present arguments/evidence | Striking was proper because Garcia lacked leave and Local Rules do not permit a surreply | Denied — Garcia offered no new law/facts or grounds for Rule 59(e) relief; mere disagreement is insufficient |
| Whether leave to file a surreply should be granted to address "new" arguments/evidence in defendants’ reply | Needs to respond to arguments/evidence allegedly raised for first time in reply | Defendants contend they did not raise new evidence or issues in reply; they addressed matters already in the record | Denied — court exercised discretion and found no new evidence or issues warranting a surreply |
| Whether pro se status requires lenient treatment permitting a surreply as of right | Pro se litigant requests leniency to file surreply | Defendants point to procedural rules and discretion against routine surreplies | Denied — court acknowledged pro se leniency but refused to extend it to allow surreply absent good cause |
| Whether the correct remedy for disagreement with the court's prior ruling is reconsideration or appeal | Reconsideration requested to revisit prior ruling on striking surreply | Court: Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy; appeal is proper recourse for legal error | Denied — appeal, not reargument, is proper if court’s ruling is legally erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Alexander, 106 F.3d 874 (9th Cir. 1997) (reconsideration appropriate for change in controlling law, facts, or clear error)
- Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2003) (Rule 59(e) may not be used to present arguments/evidence that could have been raised earlier)
- McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253 (9th Cir. 1999) (Rule 59(e) relief requires newly discovered evidence, clear error, or intervening change in law)
- Provenz v. Miller, 102 F.3d 1478 (9th Cir. 1996) (new evidence in reply should not be considered without giving non-movant chance to respond)
- Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2012) (pro se litigants entitled to some leniency in civil cases)
- U.S. ex rel. Meyer v. Horizon Health Corp., 565 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 2009) (district court has discretion to deny an inequitable surreply)