(PC) Penn v. Warden of Kern Valley State Prison

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARLIN PENN, Case No. 1:18-cv-01482-KES-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY

13 v. (Doc. No. 115) 14 A. LUCAS,

15 Defendant. 16 17 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to File a Surreply, filed on April 15, 2024. 18 (Doc. No. 115, “Motion”). Plaintiff seeks leave to file a limited surreply to address Defendant’s 19 defense of qualified immunity, which Plaintiff states Defendant raises in his Reply for the first 20 time. (Id. at 1). Plaintiff also filed a proposed three-page surreply. (Doc. No. 116). 21 Parties do not have the right to file surreplies and motions are deemed submitted when the 22 time to reply has expired. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230(l); see also Garcia v. Biter, 195 F. Supp.3d 23 at 1131, 1133 (E.D. Cal. July 18, 2016). The Court generally views motions for leave to file a 24 surreply with disfavor. Id. (citing U.S. ex rel. Meyer v. Horizon Health Corp., 565 F.3d 1195, 25 1203 (9th Cir.…