Dedrick v. Wilner et al

Filing 110

MINUTE ORDER granting 107 Dfefendants Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment ; STRIKING 18 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 9/14/2010.(erv, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 09-cv-02662-CMA-MJW JERRY LEWIS DEDRICK, Plaintiff, v. J. M. WILNER, Warden, B. GREENWOOD, AHSA, B. CINK, P.A., REICHER, Mrs., P.A., and L. MILUSNIC, AW, Defendants. MINUTE ORDER Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe It is hereby ORDERED that the Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 18] (Docket No. 107) is granted, finding good cause shown. As correctly asserted by the moving defendants, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 18) does not comply with the court's Civil Practice Standards. In particular, it does not contain the required "Statement of Undisputed Material Fact" with specific references to the record that support the plaintiff's claim. Consequently, as the plaintiff's motion currently stands, the defendants are unable to comply with the Practice Standards in responding to the motion. Furthermore, plaintiff's "Statement of Facts" is intermixed with legal argument and conclusory statements, thereby making it difficult for the defendants to respond in a meaningful manner. Although a pro se litigant's pleadings and filings are interpreted liberally, "[t]he Tenth Circuit has cautioned that pro se litigants `must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.'" Hafed v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 2009 WL 367783, at *1 (D. Colo. Feb. 13, 2009) (quoting Green v. Dorrell, 969 F.2d 915, 917 (10th Cir. 1992)). It is thus hereby ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Order (Docket No. 18) is stricken. Date: September 14, 2010