Baker v. State of Colorado, The et al
MINUTE ORDER denying 40 Plaintiff's Notice and Complaint of Clerk Error. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 1/11/12.(mnfsl, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 11-cv-02578-PAB-KLM
BRANDON BAKER, Rev.,
THE STATE OF COLORADO, and
JOHN SUTHERS, Attorney General,
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Notice and Complaint of Clerk Error
[Docket No. 40; Filed January 9, 2012] (the “Motion”). In the Motion, Plaintiff asks the
Court to strike Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss [#23] and already-ruled-upon Motion
to Accept Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint in Excess of Page
Limitation (“Motion to Accept”) [#26]. Plaintiff further states that he will “motion the court
to reconsider Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment.”
With respect to Plaintiff’s first request, he argues that the Motion to Dismiss and
Motion to Accept were “improper, excessive, void and untimely.” See Motion [#40] at 2.
Plaintiff makes conclusory allegations that Defendants violated numerous Orders and
Practice Standards of the District Judge. Without more detailed information, the Court may
not grant relief with respect to these alleged violations. Plaintiff does make two specific
complaints, however. First, with respect to his conferral complaint, the Court notes that
Defendants are not required to confer with Plaintiff on a motion made pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12, as is their Motion to Dismiss. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A. Second, Plaintiff
avers that Defendants violated Rule III.F.2.a. of the District Judge’s Practice Standards.
However, he fails to state how Defendants violated that standard. Therefore, the Court
may not grant relief with respect to these alleged violations, either. Consequently, the
Court DENIES the request to strike the Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Accept.
With respect to the latter request, the District Judge issued an Order [#39] denying
Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment on January 5, 2012. Plaintiff filed a Motion to
Reconsider [#42] that Order the same day that he filed the present Motion [#40]. Because
the Motion to Reconsider involves an Order of the District Judge and seeks the same relief
as Plaintiff’s request in this Motion, the Court DENIES the request here. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED.
Dated: January 11, 2012