Nagim v. Jackson et al

Filing 79

MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 77 Plaintiff's Motion for Stay of Proceedings to Enforce Judgment. Plaintiff shall not file any additional pleadings until Judge Brimmer issues a decision on the Recommendation, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 9/9/10.(ebs, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 10-cv-00328-PAB-KLM RONALD J. NAGIM Plaintiff, v. BONNIE F. JACKSON, ALICIA PELLERGRIN, STEVEN IRVING, JOSEPH E. ABRAHAM, JR. SANDRA HOYT ABRAHAM, STEPHEN PUGH, BRANDON FREEMAN, JOSEPH E. ABRAHAM, III, Defendants _______________________________________________________________________ MINUTE ORDER _____________________________________________________________________ ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Stay of Proceedings to Enforce Judgment [Docket No. 77; Filed September 7, 2010] (the "Motion"). The Court notes that the Motion is similar to ones filed by Plaintiff in two of his three pending cases before this Court: 10-cv-00329-PAB-KLM [#77], which was denied by the Court on September 8, 2010 [#29], and 10-cv-01925-REB-KLM [#40]. The Motion, which is largely unintelligible, does not contain a certification that it was served upon Defendants as required by D.C.COLO.LCivR 5.1G. (requiring certificate of service that the motion was served upon opposing party). Despite the fact that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he is required to comply with the rules of this Court. Green v. Dorell, 969 F.2d 915, 917 (10th Cir. 1992). The Motion is subject to denial on this basis alone. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED without prejudice. All future motions filed by Plaintiff must comply with the Federal and Local Rules of Civil Procedure. In addition, the Court notes that the legal basis for the Motion is unclear. The Court also notes that a Recommendation has been issued on Defendants' motions to dismiss, which may resolve the matter prior to the setting of case deadlines [# 69]. Plaintiff has filed objections to the Recommendation [# 76]. Accordingly, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall not file any additional pleadings until District Court Judge Philip A. Brimmer issues a decision on the

Recommendation. Any pleadings filed in violation of this Order shall be stricken. Dated: September 9, 2010