Chytka v. Wright Tree Service, Inc.

Filing 143

ORDER; This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's re: filed by Kathleen Chytka, Supplement to Motion for Summary Judgment 141 and the 142 Conventionally Submitted Material accompanying the Supplement. It is hereby ORDERED that the Supplement 141 and conventionally submitted materials 142 are STRICKEN as untimely. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff shall not file any additional briefs or materials in connection with her Motion for Summary Judgment 81 or 115 . The per iod for briefing and submitting evidence has CLOSED. Briefs, evidence or other materials in contravention of this Order will be summarily stricken. The Court will issue a ruling on the Motions for Summary Judgment in the future. The Court declines to provide a date as to when those rulings will issue, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 10/31/2012. (klmcd, )

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.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Supplement to Motion for Summary
Judgment [Docket No. 141; Filed October 29, 2012] (the “Supplement”) and the
conventionally submitted material [#142] accompanying the Supplement, which is a large
three-ring binder of unsorted documents purportedly submitted in support of Plaintiff’s
Motion for Summary Judgment [#81].
On May 29, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment [#81]. Due to
compliance issues, the Court provided Plaintiff with an opportunity to withdraw her Motion
for Summary Judgment and submit a new version [#105]. Plaintiff did not do so. To allow
time for resubmission of the Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court gave Defendant until
August 17, 2012 to file its Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, which it
timely did [#105, #107]. Plaintiff did not file a Reply.
Defendant also filed its own Motion for Summary Judgment on August 16, 2012

1

[#115]. On August 20, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment [#118]. The Court struck a portion of Plaintiff’s Response for non-compliance
with the District Judge’s Civil Practice Standards [#126]. The Court provided Plaintiff with
an opportunity to withdraw her Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
and submit a new compliant version [#126]. Plaintiff did not do so. Defendant filed a Reply
to its Motion for Summary Judgment on September 24, 2012 [#128]. Plaintiff filed a Surreply on September 27, 2012 [#129], which the Court struck on October 24, 2012 [#137].
Plaintiff’s time to submit documents in connection with both her Motion for Summary
Judgment [#81] and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [#115] is long past. The
discovery period in this matter closed on July 5, 2012 and the dispositive motions deadline
passed on August 6, 2012. Plaintiff has not sought leave to file additional, untimely
materials. She has not explained why she could not have timely submitted these materials
in connection with the summary judgment briefing schedule. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1C.
(providing 21 days after the date of service of a motion in which to file a response and 14
days after the date of service of a response in which to file a reply). She did not take
advantage of the opportunities provided by the Court to submit appropriate and compliant
briefs in connection with the dispositive motions. Yet, Plaintiff continues to file documents
with the Court seeking a ruling on the motions as well as various documents that contain
additional briefing and/or evidence [#124, #129, #132, #138, #141, #142].
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); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th
Cir. 1991). 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,
2

#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. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Supplement [#141] and conventionally submitted
materials [#142] are STRICKEN as untimely.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall not file any additional briefs or
materials in connection with her Motion for Summary Judgment [#81] or Defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment [#115]. The period for briefing and submitting evidence has
CLOSED. Briefs, evidence, or other materials in contravention of this Order will be
summarily stricken. The Court will issue a ruling on the Motions for Summary Judgment
in the future. The Court declines to provide a date as to when those rulings will issue.

Dated: October 31, 2012

3