(PC) Rilurcasa v. State of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TOM JON RILURCASA, Case No. 1:20-cv-01568-JLT-SAB (PC)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

v. TO FILE A SURREPLY

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., (ECF No. 52)

Defendants.

16 Plaintiff Tom Jon Rilurcasa is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to file a surreply, filed May 10, 2023. Plaintiff’s motion is both moot and unnecessary. Parties do not have the right to file surreplies and motions are deemed submitted when the time to reply has expired. Local Rule 230(l). The Court generally views motions for leave to file a surreply with disfavor. Hill v. England, No. CVF05869 REC TAG, 2005 WL 3031136, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2005) (citing Fedrick v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 366 F.Supp.2d 1190, 1197 (N.D. Ga. 2005)). However, district courts have the discretion to either permit or preclude a surreply. See U.S. ex rel. Meyer v. Horizon Health…