Camayo et al v. John Peroulis & Sons Sheep, Inc. et al

Filing 88

MINUTE ORDER. Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Defendant Crisologo Damian to Make Disclosures (docket no. 71 ) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Defendant [Crisologo] Damian to File Answer (docket no. 72 ) is also GRANTED. The Pro Se Defendant Crisologo Damian shall file an answer or otherwise respond to the Amended Complaint on or before April 30, 2012, or be subject to DEFAULT, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 4/12/12. (mjgsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 10-cv-00772-MSK-MJW
(As consolidated with 11-cv-01132-REB-MJW)
ROEL ESPEJO CAMAYO; and,
JUVENCIO SAMANIEGO DAMIAN,
Plaintiff(s),
v.
JOHN PEROULIS & SONS SHEEP, INC.;
LOUIS PEROULIS;
STANLEY PEROULIS; and,
CRISOLOGO DAMIAN,
Defendant(s).
CONSOLIDATED WITH

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01132-MSK-MJW
JHOSEMAR SAMANIEGO FERNANDEZ; and
SILVIO INGA BRUNO,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JOHN PEROULIS & SONS SHEEP, INC.;
LOUIS PEROULIS; and,
STANLEY PEROULIS;
Defendants.
MINUTE ORDER

Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Defendant Crisologo
Damian to Make Disclosures (docket no. 71) is GRANTED. Pro Se Defendant
Crisologo Damian shall provide Plaintiff with his Fed. R. Civ. P. [Rule] 26(a)(1)

2
disclosures on or before April 30, 2012.
On December 16, 2011, this court conducted a Rule 16 Scheduling Conference.
The Pro Se Defendant Crisologo Damian appeared at the Rule 16 Scheduling
Conference. This court entered a First Amended Scheduling Order (docket no. 67) on
December 16, 2011. In paragraph 6 d. in the First Amended Scheduling Order (docket
no. 67), this court ordered the parties to exchange their Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures by
December 30, 2011. To date, Pro Se Defendant Crisologo Damian has not served
Plaintiffs with his Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures. Moreover, Pro Se Defendant Crisologo
Damian has not filed any timely response to the subject motion (docket no. 71) and
therefore this court deems the motion confessed. Each party shall pay their own
attorney fees and costs for this motion.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Defendant
[Crisologo] Damian to File Answer (docket no. 72) is also GRANTED. At the Rule 16
Scheduling Conference held on December 16, 2011, this court ordered Pro Se
Defendant Crisologo Damian to answer or otherwise respond to the Amended
Complaint by January 17, 2012. See docket nos. 65 and 67. To date, Pro Se
Defendant Crisologo Damian has not filed an answer or otherwise responded to the
Amended Complaint. Furthermore, Pro Se Defendant Crisologo Damian has not filed
any timely response to the subject motion (docket no. 72), and therefore this court
deems the motion confessed. Accordingly, the Pro Se Defendant Crisologo Damian
shall file an answer or otherwise respond to the Amended Complaint on or before April
30, 2012, or be subject to DEFAULT. Each party shall pay their own attorney fees
and costs for this motion.
Pro Se litigants must “comply with the fundamental requirements of the Federal
Rules of Civil . . . Procedure.” Odgen v. San Juan County, 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir.
1994). 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. Nielson v. Price, 17 F.3d
1276, 1277 (10th Cir. 1994) (pro se plaintiffs are held to the same rules of procedure
which apply to other litigants); Hall v. Doering, 997 F. Supp. 1464, 1468 (D. Kan. 1998);
People v. Carter, 678 F. Supp. 1484, 1490 (D. Colo. 1986). 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 12, 2012