Baker v. State of Colorado, The et al

Filing 43

MINUTE ORDER denying 40 Plaintiff's Notice and Complaint of Clerk Error. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 1/11/12.(mnfsl, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 11-cv-02578-PAB-KLM BRANDON BAKER, Rev., Plaintiff, v. THE STATE OF COLORADO, and JOHN SUTHERS, Attorney General, Defendants. _____________________________________________________________________ MINUTE ORDER _____________________________________________________________________ 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