# Brown v. Warchock

> District Court, E.D. Michigan · August 17, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10219041

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Michigan
- **Decided:** August 17, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10219041

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DARNELL BROWN,
Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 21-11423
V. Laurie J. Michelson
United States District Judge
SONIA WARCHOCK, et al., David R. Grand
United States Magistrate Judge
Defendants.
/
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
PLAINTIFF’S UNSANCTIONED SURREPLY (ECF No. 31)
On June 1, 2021, plaintiff Darnell Brown (“Brown’’), who currently is incarcerated
at the Central Michigan Correctional Facility, filed this civil rights action, pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983, against several Michigan Department of Corrections (““MDOC’’) officials
(collectively, “Defendants”). (ECF No. 1). On February 1, 2022, this case was referred to
the undersigned for all pretrial purposes. (ECF No. 19).
On March 3, 2022, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on the Basis
of Exhaustion. (ECF No. 25). Brown filed a response to this motion on March 24, 2022,
and Defendants filed a reply brief on April 14, 2022. (ECF Nos. 28, 29). Nearly two
months later, on June 9, 2022, Brown filed a “Response to Defendants [sic] Motion for
Summary Judgment,” i.e., a purported surreply, without seeking leave of court to do so.
(ECF No. 30).
Defendants filed a motion to strike this submission, arguing that a surreply is not

contemplated under the Local Rules, and Brown did not seek the Court’s permission to
submit an additional filing. (ECF No. 31, PageID.157) (citing E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(c)(3)
(“A party must obtain leave of court to file more than one response to a motion for summary
judgment.”)). Brown did not file a response to Defendants’ motion, and the deadline to do
so has passed.
Defendants are correct that E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1 does not contemplate the filing of a
surreply under normal circumstances, and Brown has neither moved for permission to file
a surreply, nor articulated good cause for filing one. Moreover, Brown’s surreply has no
relation to the narrow issues raised in the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment or
their reply brief. Thus, Brown’s filing was clearly improper and will be stricken. The
Court reminds Brown that although those who proceed pro se “are afforded significant
leeway,” such plaintiffs “must still comply with the procedural rules that govern civil
cases.” Frame v. Superior Fireplace, 74 Fed. Appx. 601, 603 (6th Cir. 2003).
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Unsanctioned
Surreply (ECF No. 31) is GRANTED. Brown’s surreply (ECF No. 30) shall be
STRICKEN from the docket in this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 17, 2022 s/David R. Grand
Ann Arbor, Michigan DAVID R. GRAND
United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS
The parties’ attention is drawn to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which provides a period of

fourteen (14) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order within which to file
objections for consideration by the district judge under 28 U.S. C. §636(b)(1).
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of
record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to their respective email
or First Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on August
17, 2022.
s/Eddrey O. Butts
EDDREY O. BUTTS
Case Manager

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10219041. Public record. Not legal advice.