Robledo-Valdez v. Smelser et al

Filing 75

MINUTE ORDER denying 65 Motion for Reconsideration by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 06/19/13.(jjhsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01833-WYD-KLM
CRAIG ROBLEDO-VALDEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
DICK SMELSER, Warden of CCA,
RAY ROMERO, of CCCF,
ALBERT MARTINEZ, of CCA,
TIANA LUCERO, of CCCF,
ELIJAH RIDGEWELL,
JUDY BREZINDINE,
RAMOS, Officer,
SANTISTEVAN, Officer,
RACHAEL INFANTE,
GONZALES, Conselor,
MONREAL, Sergeant,
ACKER, Sergeant,
SHANE KOLANDER,
PELSTER, Sergeant,
TONY CAROCHI,
DANIEL CHAVEZ,
C. REYES,
D. CORTESE,
2 UNNMED PPMU OFFICERS, and
RANDY MARTINEZ,

Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order
[Docket No. 65; Filed June 17, 2013] (the “Motion”). In the Motion Plaintiff asks the Court
to reconsider “the recent order by Judge Mix to allow/grant the Defendants[’] Motion for
leave to exceed page limitations.” Motion [#65] at 1. While Plaintiff does not specify which
Order entered in this case he requests reconsideration of, the Court will assume he means
1

the Order entered May 1, 2013 [#58] granting Defendants Carochi and Cortese leave to
exceed the page limitations for their motion to dismiss. In its discretion the Court may grant
leave to exceed the page limitations set in the applicable rules. While the Court
understands the limitations Plaintiff faces as a pro se litigant, Plaintiff’s status as a pro se
litigant does not mean that the Court should not afford Defendants additional pages when
drafting a dispositive motion if the Court deems Defendants’ request meritorious.
Plaintiff asks the Court to allow him 15 days in which to respond to Defendant
Carochi’s and Defendant Cortese’s Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limitations on Motion
to Dismiss (Doc. 33) [#35]. That motion was filed on January 14, 2013 and the Court’s
Order was entered on May 2, 2013. Plaintiff had more than enough time to file a response
to the Motion prior to entry of the Order. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#65] is DENIED.
Dated: June 19, 2013

2