Pelletier v. USA

Filing 149

ORDER denying 148 Motion for Reconsideration re 147 First MOTION for Reconsideration re 145 Order on Motion for Reconsideration, filed by Carrie Lynn Pelletier, Glen Pelletier, Glen Scott Pelletier, 148 MOTION for Reconsideration filed by Carrie Lynn Pelletier, Glen Pelletier, Glen Scott Pelletier by Judge William J. Martinez on 06/24/2015.(cthom, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 11-cv-01377-WJM-CBS
GLEN PELLETIER,
CARRIE LYNN PELLETIER, and
HOBIE MATTHEW WITT,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
JOHN LONGSHORE, Field Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Denver
District,
IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, Denver District, and
STEVEN M. BRANCH, Field Office Director, Salt Lake City Field Office,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider the Order Striking Plaintiffs’
Second Motion to Reconsider (“Motion”). (ECF No. 147, as supplem ented by ECF No.
148-1.) This Court struck Plaintiffs’ “Second Motion to Reconsider” (ECF No. 144) for
exceeding the undersigned’s 15-page limit by 68 pages. (ECF No. 145.) For the
reasons stated below, the Motion is denied.
Plaintiffs’ first argument is that they should receive additional pages “because
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment was 29 pages . . . where the stated rules
allow only twenty pages. ECF 117, 117-1.” (ECF No. 148-1 at 1.) However, ECF Nos.
117 and 117-1 were the Government’s summary judgment motion from more than two
years ago, before the appeal. The fact that the undersigned chose not to strike that
brief has no bearing on whether Plaintiffs can now file an 83-page motion—which is not

a motion for summary judgment in any event, and is therefore subject to the
undersigned’s 15-page restriction. See WJM Revised Practice Standard III.C.1.
Plaintiffs further argue that they “did not have ‘actual notice’ of the ‘actual
practice standards,’ until the Court issued [its order striking the motion to reconsider].”
(ECF No. 148-1 at 1.) All counsel are expected to be familiar with the practice
standards of all judicial officers in this District just as they are expected to be familiar
with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this District’s Local Rules. Lack of “actual
notice” is no excuse.
Plaintiffs next argue that exceeding page limitations “is not the type of offense
that warrants avoiding a decision on the merits.” (Id. at 2.) However, this Court has
made no decision on the merits of anything since the mandate issued.
Plaintiffs “request that the Court reconsider its Order striking ECF [1]44 and grant
leave for Plaintiffs to file an amended Motion to Reconsider of up to 24 pages with a
one week extension of time from today,” or, “[i]n the alternative, Plaintiffs request leave
to file an amended Motion to Reconsider of up to 15 pages.” (Id. at 3.) But there is no
basis to file a “motion to reconsider” at this stage. Again, the Court has made no
substantive rulings since the mandate issued.
Plaintiffs state that they “intend to file a response to ECF 141 and 143,” referring
to the Government’s currently pending summary judgment motion and supplemental
brief. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiffs further state the they
intend to respond to Defendants’ assertions that relief is
barred by the doctrine of the law of the case and the
mandate rule by arguing that ECF 133 [this Court’s
pre-appeal order denying reconsideration] is clearly
erroneous and results in manifest injustice. Plaintiffs do not
2

wish to use up the page limitation in their Response to ECF
141 and 143 to make the arguments that were stricken in
ECF 144. Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the
Court rule on this motion as quickly as it moved to strike
ECF 144, i.e. no later than 2:26 p.m. on June 23, 2015, so
that Plaintiffs will have adequate notice of whether they may
file an amended Motion to Reconsider.
(Id. at 4–5 (citations omitted).)
Wholly apart from the fact that Plaintiffs did not file their instant motion until 9:01
AM today (June 24) and this Court therefore could not possibly rule “no later than 2:26
p.m. on June 23, 2015,” this argument is difficult to understand. Plaintiffs seem to be
saying that they want to file two response briefs, one to address the Government’s
“assertions that relief is barred by the doctrine of the law of the case and the mandate
rule” and another to address everything else. Construing this as a request to exceed
their current page limitations, the request is denied. Plaintiffs may already file up to
twenty pages of argument. WJM Revised Practice Standard III.E.3. The Court sees no
justification for granting more pages than this, especially considering that the
Government’s summary judgment motion, brief-in-support, and supplemental brief
comprise twenty pages total (ECF Nos. 141, 141-1) according to the above-cited
Practice Standard which counts motions and briefs-in-support as a single document,
but excludes signature blocks and certificates of service.
“In the alternative, Plaintiffs request the Court to grant Plaintiffs additional time to
file their Response after the Court rules on this motion.” (ECF No. 148-1 at 5.) This
request is also denied. As the Court stated on May 26, 2015:
The Government filed its [ECF No.] 141 Motion for Summary
Judgment (Motion) on March 20, 2015 . . . . Pursuant to
D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d), Plaintiff then had 21 days (i.e., until
3

April 10, 2015) to file a response. Plaintiff did not timely file
a response and has not since filed anything. The Court
could therefore deem the Government’s motion confessed.
In the interests of justice, however, the Court will not do so
at this point.
(ECF No. 142.) The Court then ordered the Government to file a supplemental brief by
June 10, 2015 (fifteen days from the date of the order) and, “[i]n the interests of justice,”
allowed Plaintiffs “to file a response brief no later than June 24, 2015” (two weeks after
the Government’s deadline). (Id.) In other words, Plaintiffs had twenty-one days from
the date the Government originally filed its summary judgment motion, plus forty-six
unauthorized days (until the Court issued its May 26 order), plus another twenty-nine
days following the May 26 order, for a total of ninety-six days to prepare a response.
No additional time is needed, especially when it is evident that Plaintiffs have spent this
time preparing an 83-page motion directed largely at issues addressed by the Tenth
Circuit (ECF No. 144) and a 5-page motion specifically about page limits (ECF Nos. 147
& 148-1).
For all these reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider the Order Striking
Plaintiffs’ Second Motion to Reconsider (ECF No. 147) is DENIED.
Dated this 24th day of June, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

William J. Martínez
United States District Judge

4