Meritt

I. INTRODUCTION

20 Following screening of the first amended complaint, this action proceeds on Plaintiff’s 21 Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claims against Defendants Carlson, Correa,1 and Merritt, First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Merritt, and 23 Fourteenth Amendment and state law equal protection clause claims against Defendant Carlson. 24 On May 13, 2024, Defendants filed a Motion to Revoke Plaintiff’s In Forma Pauperis 25 Status. (Doc. 62.) Plaintiff opposed (Doc. 64) and Defendants replied (Doc. 68).

1 On August 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Plaintiff’s Counterclaim to Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Revoke In Forma Pauperis Where Plaintiff Meets On-Going Imminent Danger.” (Doc. 69.) II. DISCUSSION Plaintiff’s Sur-Reply Brief Initially, the Court addresses Plaintiff’s “counterclaim” to Defendants’ reply. The Court construes Plaintiff’s filing to be a sur-reply. This Court’s Local Rule 230(l) concerning motions in prisoner actions does not provide for the filing of a response to a reply or sur-reply. Rather, the rule allows for…