United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division
March 30, 2015
TAFT R. LEWIS, Plaintiff,
CITY OF ROMULUS/ ROMULUS POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants.
Honorable Matthew F. Leitman
ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S SURREPLY 
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD, United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff Taft Lewis, proceeding pro se, filed a reply to Defendants City of Romulus, Romulus Police Department, Hussein Farhat, Tommy Westhoff and 34th Judicial District Court of Michigan’s motions to dismiss. . A party has no right under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to file a surreply brief. Jones v. Northcoast Behavioral Healthecare Sys., 84 Fed.Appx. 597, 599 (6th Cir. 2003). While courts have discretion to permit such a filing where reasonable, (Seay v. TVA, 339 F.3d 454, 480 (6th Cir. 2003), such discretion is exercised upon motion of a party for leave to file a supplemental brief, and Taft did not seek leave of this Court to file the instant surreply. See e.g. LaSalle Nat’l Bank Ass’n v. Wonderland Shopping Ctr. Venture Ltd. P’ship, 223 F.Supp.2d 806, 808 n.1 (E.D. Mich. 2002). Further, the Court finds that Defendants’ reply does not raise new issues that were not raised in their original motion to dismiss such that a supplemental response is warranted. Moreover, Taft’s surreply does no more than simply re-argue the points he raised in his original response to the various motions to dismiss. Therefore, the Court ORDERS that Taft’s surreply  be STRICKEN.
IT IS SO ORDERED.