United States District Court, D. Kansas
Nicholas A. COX, Plaintiff,
Ann (LNU), et al., Defendants.
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Nicholas A. Cox, Olathe, KS, pro se.
Bradley S. Russell, Tracy M. Hayes, Sanders Warren & Russell LLP, Overland Park, KS, Kirk Thomas Ridgway, Ferree, Bunn, Rundberg, Radom & Ridgway, Chartered, Overland Park, KS, Jeff K. Brown, M. Bradley Watson, Ryan C. Fowler, Scott K. Logan, Thomas R. Pickert, Logan Logan & Watson, LC, Prairie Village, KS, for Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
GERALD L. RUSHFELT, United States Magistrate Judge.
The Court has under consideration two motions filed by pro se Plaintiff Nicolas
Cox (Cox or Plaintiff)— a Motion to Compel Cited Case Law (ECF No. 22) and a Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 32). The Court also considers Defendant Sheriff's Motion for Leave to File Surreply to Plaintiff's Reply in Support of his Motion to Compel Case Law (ECF No. 39). For the reasons set out below, the Court denies all three motions.
I. Relevant Factual Background
Plaintiff pro se commenced this action by filing a civil complaint in state court. On October 18, 2012, Defendant Frank Denning (Sheriff) filed a notice of removal and paid the filing fee in this case. Defendants have moved to dismiss this action. Plaintiff has thereafter filed various responses and motions, including the two motions under consideration. Defendants oppose both motions  and Plaintiff has filed reply briefs. In response to a reply brief related to the motion to compel, Defendant Sheriff has moved for leave to file a surreply. Plaintiff has responded to that motion.  All three motions are ripe for ruling.
II. Motion for Leave to File Surreply
The Sheriff seeks to file a surreply because Plaintiff asserts new allegations and arguments in his reply to the Sheriff's response to the motion to compel case law. He wants the Court to consider his surreply " [t]o the extent the Court feels clarification of these allegations is pertinent."  Plaintiff opposes the motion.
In general, the Court " summarily denies or excludes all arguments and issues first raised in reply briefs."  In extraordinary circumstances, the Court may alternatively grant leave to file a surreply on a showing of good cause. In this instance the Court finds no good cause for a surreply. It finds no need for clarification of Plaintiff's new allegations. It can simply summarily deny or exclude the new arguments, if that is warranted. The newly asserted arguments, moreover, have no obvious merit to save the motion to compel case law from denial. There is no need for additional briefing on the arguments asserted in the reply brief. Accordingly, the Court denies the motion to file a surreply as unnecessary.
III. Motion to Compel Case Law
Plaintiff seeks to compel defendants to provide him copies of all case law cited in their court filings. He argues he has no access to unpublished case law or to federal court reporters. He contends that he needs access to cited cases to effectively construe arguments and identify distinguishing facts. He directs the Court to a
decision in Case No. 12-CV-2571-KHV-DJW in which Magistrate Judge Waxse ...