Wright v. Chertoff

Filing 48

MINUTE ORDER denying 45 Pro Se Plaintiffs Motion to Clarify for failure to comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1 A. by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 4/2/09.(erv, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 08-cv-01602-WYD-MJW GILBERT CORTEZ WRIGHT, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Defendant. MINUTE ORDER Entered by United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe It is hereby ORDERED that the Pro Se Plaintiff's Motion for Clarification (docket no. 45) is DENIED for failure to comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1 A. Pro Se litigants must "comply with the fundamental requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil and Appellate Procedure." Odgen v. San Juan County, 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994); Hickey v. (NFN) Van Austin et al., 1999 CJC.AR 5979 The fact that a party is appearing pro se does not relieve that individual from the obligation of complying with all applicable rules of the court. Colorado v. Carter, 678 F. Supp. 1484, 1490 (D. Colo. 1986); Hall v. Doering, 997 F. Supp. 1464, 1468 (D. Kan. 1998) (pro se plaintiffs are held to the same rules of procedure which apply to other litigants). It is not the proper function of the district court to assume the role of advocate for the pro se litigant. Gibson v. City of Cripple Creek, 48 F 3d 1231, (10th Cir. 1995). Date: April 2, 2009