Santiago

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DANIEL ARZAGA, No. 2:18-cv-0313 KJM KJN P Plaintiff, v. ORDER E. SANTIAGO, et al., Defendants. 16 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. 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…