Rueb v. Zavaras et al

Filing 136

MINUTE ORDER granting 134 Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate. The Court construes the motion as a request to supplement 131 the Motion for Extension of Time with a certificate of service; the request for an extension of time through 5/30/2011 to file a motion to alter and amend judgment is denied as moot. The Court grants an extension of time in which Plaintiff may file a Second Amended Complaint, as stated in the 125 Order on Motion to Dismiss, up to and including 5/25/2011. By Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 4/28/2011. (mehcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 09-cv-02817-REB-MEH
JUSTIN JOSEPH RUEB,
Plaintiff,
v.
ARISTEDES ZAVARAS,
SUSAN JONES,
DENNIS BURBANK,
ANTHONY DECESARO,
LARRY REID, and
WILLIAM RICHTER,
Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on April 28, 2011.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate . . . [filed April 27, 2011; docket #134] is granted. The Court
construes this motion as a request to supplement the motion for extension of time [docket #131] with
a Certificate of Service. The Court accepts the supplement but warns Plaintiff that the proffered
certificate still does not comply fully with Local Rule 5.1G, which requires, in pertinent part, the
following: “Each paper, other than one filed ex parte, shall be accompanied by a certificate of service
indicating the date it was served, the name and address of the person to whom it was sent, and the
manner of service.” (emphasis added). Any future filings not in full compliance may be stricken.
In the motion for extension of time [docket #131], Plaintiff asks for an extension of time
through May 30, 2011, to file a motion to alter and amend judgment. Plaintiff also refers to a “2nd
Amended Complaint,” consisting of “several hundred pages.” This request is denied as moot.
Although the time for filing a Rule 59(e) motion has passed, Rule 60(c) provides for an extended
time frame in which to file a motion pursuant to Rule 60(b).
In consideration of Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court grants an extension of time in which
Plaintiff may file a Second Amended Complaint, limited to Claim 5(b) only, as stated in the District
Court’s March 7, 2011 order (docket #125 at 20), up to and including May 25, 2011.