Nagim et al v. Irving et al

Filing 42

MINUTE ORDER. Plaintiffs Motion for Stay of Proceedings to Enforce Judgment 40 is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiffs shall not file any additional pleadings until the Court issues a recommendation on the pending Motions to Dismiss. Any pleadings filed in violation of this Order shall be stricken. Given the filing of a Response to the pending Motions to Dismiss which is signed by both Plaintiffs, the Order to Show Cause 18 is DISCHARGED. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 09/08/2010.(sah, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 10-cv-01925-REB-KLM RONALD NAGIM, and JANET NAGIM, Plaintiffs, v. STEPHEN IRVING, JOSEPH E. ABRAHAM, JR., SANDRA ABRAHAM, JOSEPH E. ABRAHAM, III, ALICIA PELLERGRIN, and LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY, Defendants. _____________________________________________________________________ MINUTE ORDER _____________________________________________________________________ ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Stay of Proceedings to Enforce Judgment [Docket No. 40; Filed September 7, 2010] (the "Motion"). The Court notes that the Motion is similar to ones filed by Plaintiff Ronald Nagim in two of his three pending cases before this Court: 10-cv-00328-PAB-KLM [#77], 10-cv-00329-PAB-KLM [#27]. 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 Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se, they are 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 Plaintiffs 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 Motions to Dismiss are pending in this case which may resolve the matter prior to the setting of case deadlines [Docket Nos. 6 & 13]. Plaintiffs have responded to those motions [Docket No. 35]. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall not file any additional pleadings until the Court issues a recommendation on the pending Motions to Dismiss. Any pleadings filed in violation of this Order shall be stricken. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that given the filing of a Response to the pending Motions to Dismiss which is signed by both Plaintiffs, the Order to Show Cause [Docket No. 18] is DISCHARGED. Although the pleading does not comply with my prior Orders [Docket Nos. 18 & 28], Docket No. 35 is deemed to be Plaintiffs' Response for purposes of resolving the pending Motions to Dismiss. Dated: September 8, 2010

2