Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Alverto v. Gilbert

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma

May 6, 2019

JEROME CEASAR ALVERTO, Plaintiff,
v.
MARGARET GILBERT, Defendant.

          ORDER

          David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge.

         Plaintiff Jerome Ceasar Alverto, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dkt. 6. Presently before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement the Record (“Motion to File Signature Page”) (Dkt. 25); Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File the Enclosed and Updated Corrected Information (“Motion for Extension of Time”) (Dkt. 31); Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement the Record (“Motion to Supplement”) (Dkt. 32); and Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Extended Surreply (“Motion to File a Surreply”) (Dkt. 33). Also pending in this matter is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Dkt. 18.

         After considering the motions and relevant record, the Motion to File Signature Page (Dkt. 25) is granted. The Motion for Extension of Time (Dkt. 31) is granted-in-part, and the Motion to Supplement (Dkt. 32) is granted. Lastly, the Motion to File a Surreply (Dkt. 33) is denied. The Clerk is directed to re-note Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 18) for consideration on May 10, 2019.

         I. Motion to File Signature Page (Dkt. 25)

         On March 18, 2019, Defendants filed the Motion for Summary Judgment. Dkt. 18. On April 2, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment. Dkt. 24. With the Response, Plaintiff filed a Declaration. See Id. at pp. 24-37. On April 4, 2019, Plaintiff submitted the Motion to File Signature Page. Dkt. 25. Plaintiff maintains that he misplaced the signature page when filing the Response and seeks to add the signature page to the Declaration. See Id. Defendants do not oppose Plaintiff's request. Dkt. 30. Accordingly, the Motion to File Signature Page (Dkt. 25) is granted. The Court will consider the signature page as part of the record when deciding Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.

         II. Motion for Extension of Time (Dkt. 31), Motion to Supplement (Dkt. 32), and Motion to File Surreply (Dkt. 33)

         On April 18, 2019, Plaintiff filed the Motion for Extension of Time. Dkt. 31. In the Motion for Extension of Time, Plaintiff requests leave of Court to file (1) supplemental pages to his Response, as set forth in the Motion to Supplement (Dkt. 32); and (2) a surreply to Defendants' Reply, as set forth in the Motion to File a Surreply (Dkt. 33). See Dkt. 31, p. 3. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion for Extension of Time (Dkt. 31) is granted-in-part.

         A. Motion to Supplement (Dkt. 32)

         In the Motion to Supplement, Plaintiff requests an extension of time to file amended pages to his Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. See Dkt. 32; see also Dkt. 31. Plaintiff asserts he did not receive a deposition transcript Defendants filed with the Motion for Summary Judgment until after Plaintiff filed the Response. See Dkt. 32. As such, Plaintiff requests the Court grant him an extension of time to allow him to file amended pages to his Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment. See id.; see also Dkt. 32. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to “supplement” pages in his Response “with corrections” by adding citations to the deposition transcript he maintains he previously could not access. Dkt. 32, pp. 1-2; see also Id. at pp. 4-8. Defendants oppose Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement, asserting the record does not indicate anyone deprived Plaintiff of his access to the deposition transcript. Dkt. 32, pp. 2-3. Further, Defendants argue Plaintiff's “filings are an attempt” to get “the last word” on the Motion for Summary Judgment. Id. at p. 3.

         After reviewing the record, the Court finds Plaintiff, in the Motion to Supplement, merely seeks to add deposition transcript citations to the content he already filed in the Response. Compare Dkt. 24, pp. 28, 30, 32, 35, and 36 with Dkt. 32, pp. 4-8. As Plaintiff is not altering the content of the Response, the Court finds the interests of justice require granting the Motion to Supplement. Thus, the Motion to Supplement (Dkt. 32) is granted. The Court will consider the pages submitted with the Motion to Supplement (Dkt. 32, pp. 4-8) when deciding Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.

         As Plaintiff is granted leave to file amended pages into the record, the Court, in an abundance of caution, will allow Defendants to file a supplemental reply to the Motion for Summary Judgment on or before May 10, 2019.

         B. Motion to File a Surreply (Dkt. 33)

         Lastly, in the Motion to File a Surreply, Plaintiff requests leave of Court to file a surreply to Defendants' Reply regarding the Motion for Summary Judgment. Dkt. 33; see also Dkt. 31. Plaintiff likewise seeks to file a declaration in support of the surreply. See Dkt. 33-2. Defendant opposes Plaintiff's Motion to File a Surreply, contending the surreply “simply responds to Defendants' [R]eply” and “is not aided by ‘new' information” from the deposition transcript. Dkt. 34, p. 3.

         Pursuant to Local Rule CR 7(g)(2), surreplies are “strictly limited” to requests to strike material contained in or attached to a reply brief. “Extraneous argument or a surreply filed for any other reason will not be considered.” Id; see also ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.