Glasser v. King et al

Filing 291

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 289 Motion for Reconsideration re filed by Michael Walsh, by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 8/12/2014.(evana, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Senior Judge Wiley Y. Daniel
Civil Action No.

12-cv-00624-WYD-CBS

WAYNE GLASSER,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLE KING, RN,
MICHAEL WALSH, PA, and
LT. JAMES HARDING,
Defendants.

ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend an Order [ECF
No. 289], filed July 31, 2014. In this Motion, pro se Plaintiff requests reconsideration of
the Court’s Order [ECF No. 287] striking Plaintiff’s response to CDOC Defendants’ Motion
for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 285]. Plaintiff’s response was stricken for failing to
comply with my PRACTICE STANDARDS. Defendants filed a response to Plaintiff’s Motion
to Amend an Order [ECF No. 290] on August 6, 2014.
Plaintiff seeks the Court’s approval to allow his thirty-six (36) page Striken
Response to stand as submitted. In the alternative, he requests a 60 day extension for
resubmission in order to comply with my PRACTICE STANDARDS and excusal from
resubmitting the exhibits filed with his Striken Response [ECF No. 285]. Defendants
oppose Plaintiff’s request to allow Plaintiff’s Striken Response to stand as submitted.
Defendants do not oppose Plaintiff’s request for a 60 day extension or Plaintiff’s request
regarding the previously filed exhibits. For clarity purposes, the Court’s Order [ECF No.

287] indicated that the deadline for resubmission was August 14 of 2015. However, this
was a typographical error and is more appropriately August 14 of 2014.
In regards to the Plaintiff’s request to allow his Striken Response to stand as
submitted, “[e]xceptions to the . . . [Court’s] page limitations will be made only in
extraordinary circumstances where the Court decides that the complexity and numerosity
of issues compel briefs of greater length.” Senior Judge Wiley Y. Daniel’s PRACTICE
STANDARDS, § II(E)(2). “A motion requesting such permission must include sufficient
detail to allow the Court to discern the necessity of additional pages.” PRACTICE
STANDARDS, § II(E)(2). Based on Plaintiff’s justification for his Striken Response to stand
as submitted, the Court has determined that a thirty-six (36) page brief is not warranted.
Plaintiff will, therefore, need to resubmit a response that complies with my PRACTICE
STANDARDS. As such, it is
ORDERED that the Motion [ECF No. 289] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN
PART. The Motion is GRANTED to the extent that Plaintiff is allowed a 60 day
extension to resubmit a responsive brief to CDOC Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment [ECF No. 280] on or before October 13, 2014. NO FURTHER extensions
will be considered. The Plaintiff’s response SHALL COMPLY with my PRACTICE
STANDARDS, to include § II(E)(1) regarding page limitations. In addition, Plaintiff is
EXCUSED from resubmitting the exhibits filed with his Striken Response [ECF No. 285].
It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED as to Plaintiff’s request for his
Striken Response to stand as submitted. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall send a copy of my
-2-

PRACTICE STANDARDS to Plaintiff and that all subsequent motions shall be referred to
Magistrate Judge Shaffer in accordance with my prior Order of Reference.
Dated: August 12, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

s/ Wiley Y. Daniel
Wiley Y. Daniel
Senior United States District Judge

-3-