Obando v. Zavaras et al

Filing 59

MINUTE ORDER granting in part and denying in part 57 Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The Motion is denied to the extent it seeks to have Plaintiff's MPSJ stricken. The Motion is granted to the extent that it seeks an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's MPSJ. Defendants shall respond to Plaintiffs MPSJ [#50] no later than 6/4/2012. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 5/21/2012.(jjpsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 11-cv-01372-CMA-KLM
ALEX OBANDO,
Plaintiff,
v.
ARISTEDES W. ZAVARAS, DOC Executive Director,
TOM CLEMENTS, DOC Executive Director,
SUSAN JONES, CSP Warden,
MICHELLE NYCZ, Classification Chairperson,
JAMES OLSON, Committee Chairperson,
DAN DENNIS, Committee Member, and
JOHN DOE, CSP Assistant Administrative Head,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 50) [Docket No. 57; Filed May 17, 2012] (the
“Motion”). In the Motion, Defendants seek a Court order striking Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment [Docket No. 50; Filed April 30, 2012] (the “MPSJ”) and an extension
of time in which to respond to the MPSJ. They assert that Plaintiff’s MPSJ fails to comply
with Local Rule 56.1A., which requires “a statement of undisputed facts,” and District Judge
Christine M. Arguello’s Civil Practice Standards § III.G.4., which states:
All motions for summary judgment must contain a “Statement of Undisputed
Material Facts.” This Statement shall set forth in simple, declarative
sentences, which are separately numbered and paragraphed, each material
fact which the movant believes is not in dispute and which supports movant’s
claim that movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Each separately
numbered and paragraphed fact must be accompanied by a specific
reference to material in the record which establishes that fact.
Upon review of the MPSJ filed by Plaintiff, who proceeds in this matter pro se, the
Court finds that it substantially complies with both the Local Rule and the District Judge’s
-1-

Civil Practice Standards. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–21 (1972); Hall v.
Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (stating that the filings of pro se litigants
must be construed liberally). The MPSJ contains a section titled “Undisputed Facts.” See
MPSJ [#50] at 3. Plaintiff has largely stated each fact in a “simple, declarative sentence”
in a separate paragraph and cited supporting material for each assertion. See id. at 3-5.
The only substantial deviation from the District Judge’s Civil Practice Standards is that
Plaintiff did not number each paragraph. See id. Although this is technically noncompliance, the Court is mindful of Plaintiff’s status as a pro se litigant and finds that
striking Plaintiff’s MPSJ for failure to number paragraphs in the two pages of undisputed
facts outlined in the MPSJ would not be in the interest of justice or expedient to the
determination of this case. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 (stating that the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure “should be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and
inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding”). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#57] is GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART. The Motion is denied to the extent it seeks to have Plaintiff’s MPSJ
stricken. The Motion is granted to the extent that it seeks an extension of time to respond
to Plaintiff’s MPSJ. Defendants shall respond to Plaintiff’s MPSJ [#50] no later than June
4, 2012.

Dated: May 21, 2012

-2-