Chytka v. Wright Tree Service, Inc.

Filing 126

MINUTE ORDER. The Clerk of the Court shall change the designation of Docket No. 118 from a Motion to a Response to Docket No. 115 . Motion # 120 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It is GRANTED to the extent that pages 1-20 and the exhibits on pages 45-58 of Docket No. 118 are not stricken. It is DENIED to the extent that the Court STRIKES pages 21-43 of Docket No. 118 . Motion # 122 is DENIED as moot, as the Court has already granted Defendant's request for an extension of tim e and Defendant has since filed the relevant document. See [# 109 , # 111 ]. Motion # 124 , which appears to be another motion for summary judgment by Plaintiff, is STRICKEN as untimely. Defendant shall file a Reply to Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [# 115 ] on or before 09/24/2012, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 08/30/2012.(wjcsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 11-cv-00968-REB-KLM
KATHLEEN CHYTKA,
Plaintiff,
v.
WRIGHT TREE SERVICE, INC.,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to the Court to Deside on the
Plaintiff Summery of Judgement for This Case on the Grounds as Follows the
Plaintiff Gets a Jury Trial if the Judgement by the Court is Not for the Plaintiff
Summery of Judgement [sic] [Docket No. 118; Filed August 20, 2012] (“Motion #118”);
Plaintiff’s Motion to the Court to Not Strike My Summery of Judgement or Summery
of Judgement Rebuttal to the Defendants Oppositions on This Case on the Grounds
as Follows the Plaintiff Gets a Jury Trial if the Judgment by the Court is Not for the
Plaintiff Summery of Judgement [sic] [Docket No. 120; Filed August 27, 2012] (“Motion
#120”); Plaintiff’s Motion to the Court to Object to the Defendant Extension on This
Case on the Grounds as Follows [Docket No. 122; Filed August 27, 2012] (“Motion
#122”); and on Plaintiff’s Motion to the Court to Deside on the Plaintiff Summery of
Judgement for This Case on the Grounds as Follows the Plaintiff Gets a Jury Trial
if the Judgement by the Court is Not for the Plaintiff Summery of Judgement [sic]
[Docket No. 124; Filed August 27, 2012] (“Motion #124”). In part, Plaintiff seeks to know
why “every thing the Plaintiff asked for was denied while the Defendant that had an attorney
to represent them got every thing they asked the court. The Plaintiff would like to Know
why explained in Detail?” [sic] See [#124] at 2.
Throughout the course of this litigation, the Court has attempted to decipher
Plaintiff’s prolix filings in this matter. See, e.g., [#26, #28, #29, #30, #32, #33, #40, #41,
#43, #46, #50, #53, #54, #55, #59, #60, #63, #64, #65, #68, #69, #70, #74, #76, #77, #78,
#79, #81, #86, #87, #94, #96, #98, #101, #112]. The Court is mindful that it must construe
the filings of a pro se litigant liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972);
1

Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). However, many, if not most, of
Plaintiff’s filings have been “verbose, redundant, ungrammatical, [and] unintelligible.”
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1H., the Court may strike these pleadings or impose sanctions
on Plaintiff for filing them. Thus far, the Court has declined to impose sanctions on Plaintiff.
The Motions at issue in this Minute Order continue to fall within the same pattern of
document composition. The Court may not be a pro se litigant’s advocate, nor should it
“supply additional factual allegations to round out [a pro se litigant’s] complaint or construct
a legal theory on [his] behalf.” Whitney v. New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170, 1173-74 (10th Cir.
1997) (citing Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110).
The Court has painstakingly attempted to guide this pro se Plaintiff through the
federal legal system by written orders and at hearings. See, e.g., [#22, #36, #42, #45, #52,
#61, #62, #67, #73, #85, #90, #100, #105, #114]. However, a pro se litigant must follow
the same procedural rules that govern other litigants. Nielson v. Price, 17 F.3d 1276, 1277
(10th Cir. 1994). Plaintiff repeatedly fails to adhere to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
to the Local Rules, to the District Judge’s Civil Practice Standards, and to the Court’s
Orders and other directives. The present Motions are no exception.
Defendant appears to interpret Motion #118 as an additional motion for summary
judgment by Plaintiff. See Motion [#120] at 3 (attaching an e-mail from Defendant’s
counsel to Plaintiff). Plaintiff appears to assert that Motion #118 is actually her Response
to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [#115]. See Motion [#124]. Based on this
assertion, the Court accepts Motion #118 as Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment.
However, as Defendant points out, Plaintiff’s Response [#118] is 43 pages long,
which is 23 pages longer than that permitted by the District Judge’s Civil Practice
Standards, Section IV.B.2.1 The Court therefore STRIKES pages 21-43 of Plaintiff’s
Response [#118]. The Court will only review pages 1-20 of Plaintiff’s Response [#118]
along with the exhibits attached thereto on pages 45-58.
If Plaintiff so chooses, she may file an amended response to Defendant’s Motion
for Summary Judgment [#115] that complies in full with the District Judge’s Practice
Standards.2 The Court will consider an amended response in place of Docket Entry No.
118. If Plaintiff does choose to file an amended response, Plaintiff must name the
document Amended Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and the
document must be no longer than 20 pages, not including exhibits. This document must
be filed on or before September 10, 2012. Any Response that does not comply with

1

The Court has previously drawn Plaintiff’s attention to the District Judge’s Civil Practice
Standards. See [#100] at 2.
2

The District Judge’s Civil Practice Standards can be found online at:
http://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Documents/Judges/REB/REB_Civil_12-1-11_Final.pdf.

2

these instructions will be summarily stricken by the Court.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall change the designation
of Docket No. 118 from a Motion to a Response to Docket No. 115.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Motion #120 is GRANTED in part and DENIED
in part. It is GRANTED to the extent that pages 1-20 and the exhibits on pages 45-58 of
Docket No. 118 are not stricken. It is DENIED to the extent that the Court STRIKES pages
21-43 of Docket No. 118.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Motion #122 is DENIED as moot, as the Court has
already granted Defendant’s request for an extension of time and Defendant has since filed
the relevant document. See [#109, #111].
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Motion #124, which appears to be another motion
for summary judgment by Plaintiff, is STRICKEN as untimely.3
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, sua sponte, that Defendant shall file a Reply to
Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [#115] on or before
September 24, 2012.

Dated: August 30, 2012

3

The final deadline for filing dispositive motions was August 16, 2012.

3