Filed: Jun. 19, 2013
Latest Update: Jun. 19, 2013
Summary: ORDER CRAIG B. SHAFFER, Magistrate Judge. This civil action comes before the court on Defendants' "Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 39)." Pursuant to the Order Referring Case dated February 7, 2013 (Doc. # 15) and the memorandum dated June 19, 2013 (Doc. # 42), this matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge. The court has reviewed the Motion, the entire case file, and the applicable law and is sufficiently advised in the premises. In response to D
Summary: ORDER CRAIG B. SHAFFER, Magistrate Judge. This civil action comes before the court on Defendants' "Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 39)." Pursuant to the Order Referring Case dated February 7, 2013 (Doc. # 15) and the memorandum dated June 19, 2013 (Doc. # 42), this matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge. The court has reviewed the Motion, the entire case file, and the applicable law and is sufficiently advised in the premises. In response to De..
More
ORDER
CRAIG B. SHAFFER, Magistrate Judge.
This civil action comes before the court on Defendants' "Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 39)." Pursuant to the Order Referring Case dated February 7, 2013 (Doc. # 15) and the memorandum dated June 19, 2013 (Doc. # 42), this matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge. The court has reviewed the Motion, the entire case file, and the applicable law and is sufficiently advised in the premises.
In response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Mr. Thomas filed his 36-page Response and a 2-page "Letter" with 8 pages of exhibits. (See Docs. # 38, # 39). Mr. Thomas's submissions do not comply with the Practice Standards for the Honorable Robert E. Blackburn, which provide that, "[e]xcept motions for summary judgment, all other motions, objections (including objections to the recommendations or orders of United States Magistrate Judges), responses, and concomitant briefs shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages." See Practice Standards Civil Actions, Motions and Objections Practice, Page Limitations, Section IV.B.1. (Emphasis in original). Mr. Thomas's Response is also prolix and difficult to understand. As a pro se litigant, Mr. Thomas "must follow the same procedural rules that govern other litigants." Hale v. Ashcroft, 683 F.Supp.2d 1189, 1197 (10th Cir. 2009). Mr. Thomas's Response is properly stricken due to its non-compliance with Judge Blackburn's Civil Practice Standards.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Defendants' "Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 39)" (filed on June 19, 2013) (Doc. # 41) is GRANTED.
2. "Plaintiff's Response to Defendants[`] Motion to Dismiss" (Doc. # 39) is STRICKEN for failure to comply with Judge Blackburn's Civil Practice Standards.
3. On or before Thursday, July 18, 2013, Mr. Thomas may file a revised response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, no longer than 15 pages.
4. The court requests that the Clerk of the Court mail a copy of Judge Blackburn's Civil Practice Standards to Mr. Thomas with this Order.
