Walker v. Bay et al

Filing 200

MINUTE ORDER striking 193 Plaintiff's Motion to Demand Trial by Jury Not by Judge, striking 194 Plaintiff's Motion for Trial Days, and striking 196 Plaintiff's Motion for Order to Subpeana [sic] Security Tapes, for failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a)(1) and D.C.Colo.LCivR 7.1A, by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 5/12/09.(ebs, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya Civil Action No. 07­cv­01848­PAB­KMT CLARENCE A. WALKER, Plaintiff, v. CHIEF, SPENCE, CAPTAIN, BAY, LIEUTENANT MARTIN, SARGENT (sic) WISCAMB, SARGEANT ASPINOL, DEPUTY GOFF, DEPUTY KILLIAM, and DEPUTY SEXTON, Defendants. MINUTE ORDER ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KATHLEEN M. TAFOYA Plaintiff's "Motion to Demand Trial by Jury Not by Judge" (# 193, filed May 5, 2009), "Motion for Trial Days" (# 194, filed May 5, 2009), and "Order to Subpeana [sic] Security Tapes" (# 196, filed May 5, 2009) are STRICKEN for failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a)(1) and D.C.Colo.LCivR 7.1A. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a)(1) requires that any pleadings filed after the original complaint and any written motion be served on any party. Plaintiff did not serve his motions on Defendants. Moreover, the Local Rules of Practice for the District of Colorado require all parties to confer on motions and other disputes before a motion is filed. D.C.Colo.LCivR 7.1A; see also Visor v. Sprint, 1997 WL 796989 (D. Colo. 1997). Plaintiff failed to confer with Defendants before filing his present motions. The court previously has reminded Plaintiff of his obligation to comply with these requirements and that failure to do so may result in his documents being stricken. See doc. nos. 117 and 163. Dated: May 12, 2009