Wojdacz v. Colorado Springs City Police Department et al.

Filing 174

MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice and striking 172 Defendant Hudson's Verified Response to Motion for Default Judgment and Motion to Dismiss All Counts Against Defendant Cliff Hudson, by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 4/30/2013. (mehcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01483-REB-MEH
ELIZABETH WOJDACZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
OFFICER JOHN IRELAND,
GARY LEE NORMAN,
MICHAEL J. DUNCAN,
CLIFF HUDSON, and
PARTY’S (SIC) X, Y, & Z, whose true identity/name is unknown,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on April 30, 2013.
Before the Court is Defendant Hudson’s Verified Response to Motion for Default Judgment
and Motion to Dismiss All Counts Against Defendant Cliff Hudson [filed April 26, 2013; docket
#172]. Upon review of the Motion, the Court notes several procedural and substantive deficiencies.
For the reasons described below, the Motion is denied without prejudice and stricken.
First, Defendant Hudson’s Motion fails to comply with the Court’s Local Rules and Judge
Blackburn’s Practice Standards. D.C. Colo. LCivR 10.1E provides that all papers shall be doublespaced. Similarly, Section II.E.1. of Judge Blackburn’s states, “[a]ll papers filed with the court by
anyone other than a judicial officer shall be in Arial 12 point font. . .” Papers which do not comply
with this requirement may be stricken. Id. Defendant Hudson’s Motion is single-spaced and typed
in what appears to be Times New Roman font.
In addition to the formatting errors, the content of the Motion is also problematic. For
instance, the title of the Motion implies that Defendant is responding to a motion for default
judgment. However, the docket in this case reflects that Plaintiff has not yet moved for entry of
default against any defendant, much less sought default judgment against Mr. Hudson.
Additionally, Mr. Hudson purports to seek relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 7(d). Mr.
Hudson’s request for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is questionable insofar as Mr. Hudson asks
the Court to consider assertions of fact contained in the Motion and additional documents attached
thereto, which are typically beyond the scope of Rule 12(b)(6) analysis. With regard to Fed. R. Civ.
P. “7(d),” the 2013 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure contain no such provision.

Finally, it appears Mr. Hudson has filed an un-redacted copy of IRS Form 8879 in support
of his Motion. See docket #172-1. This document contains Plaintiff’s and Defendant Norman’s
social security numbers. In an abundance of caution, the Court has instructed the Clerk of the Court
to maintain this document under seal at Restriction Level 1 pursuant to D.C. Colo LCivR 7.2 until
further order of the Court.