Carbajal v. St. Anthony Central Hospital et al

Filing 95

MINUTE ORDER. Motion to Strike 92 is DENIED. Motion for Extension 93 is GRANTED in part. The St. Anthony Defendants shall file a Reply to Plaintiff's Response 86 on or before 2/15/2013. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 2/1/13. (kfinn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-02257-REB-KLM
DEAN CARBAJAL,
Plaintiff,
v.
ST. ANTHONY CENTRAL HOSPITAL, a corporation,
CENTURA HEALTH, a corporation,
DR. CHUANG, Supervising Physician, in his official and individual capacities,
STEPHAN M. SWAN, Physician Assistant, in his official and individual capacities,
GREGORY J. ENGLUND, Registered Nurse, in his official and individual capacities,
MARCI L. HANSUE, Registered Nurse, in her official and individual capacities,
MICHAEL O’NIELL, Police Officer for the Denver Police Department, in his official and
individual capacities,
JAY LOPEZ, Police Officer for the Denver Police Department, in his official and individual
capacities,
LARRY BLACK, Police Officer for the Denver Police Department, in his official and
individual capacities,
LIEUTENANT THOMAS, Lieutenant for the Denver Police Department, in his official and
individual capacities,
CAPTAIN STEVEN CARTER, Captain for the Denver Police Department, in his official and
individual capacities,
GILBERTO LUCIO, Police Officer for the Denver Police Department, in his official and
individual capacities, and
CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, a political subdivision of the State of Colorado,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Defendants St. Anthony Central Hospital, Centura
Health, Gregory J. Englund, and Marci L. Hansue’s (the “St. Anthony Defendants”) Motion
to Strike Plaintiff’s Response to Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint [Docket No.
92; Filed January 31, 2013] (the “Motion to Strike”); and on their Motion for Extension of
Time to File Reply Brief to Plaintiff’s Response to Motion to Dismiss Amended
Complaint [Docket No. 93; Filed January 31, 2013] (the “Motion for Extension”). In the
Motion to Strike, the St. Anthony Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s Response [#86] to their
Motion to Dismiss [#69] “is illegible, exceeds the page limitations, and fails to comply with
-1-

both the Local Rules and this Court’s Practice Standards.” Motion to Strike [#92] at 2.
They specifically cite to alleged violations of D.C.COLO.LCivR 10.1E. and 10.1G. as well
as REB Civ. Practice Standard IV.B.1., IV.C.1., and IV.C.2.1 Id. at 1-2.
Local Rule 10.1G. states, “All papers and signatures shall be legible.” The St.
Anthony Defendants aver that Plaintiff’s Response “is not legible . . . and consists of
miniature, handwritten scrawls in dense single[-]spaced pages–which renders it
indecipherable.” Motion to Strike [#92] at 3. They do not direct the Court’s attention to any
particular passages that are especially difficult to read. The Court is very familiar with
Plaintiff’s handwriting from his numerous filings in multiple cases. Many of these filings are
border-line illegible. However, the Court does not find the present filing to be so difficult to
read as to be illegible and therefore in violation of Local Rule 10.1G.
Local Rule 10.1E. states, “All papers shall be double-spaced.” As the St. Anthony
Defendants point out, while some provisions of Local Rule 10.1 exempt pro se litigants from
their mandates, Local Rule 10.1E. is not one of those provisions. Plaintiff’s tiny
handwriting, which is not unique to the Response at issue here, is as small as and/or
smaller than the 12-point font from which pro se litigants are exempted for good cause
shown. The Court agrees with the St. Anthony Defendants that Plaintiff’s filing violates
Local Rule 10.1E. Regardless, the Court does not strike this or any other present filing on
that basis alone. However, Plaintiff is warned that future filings that do not comply
with the spacing requirement of Local Rule 10.1E. shall be stricken sua sponte or on
motion from opposing counsel.
The Court next turns to the alleged violations of the District Judge’s Civil Practice
Standards. The Court first notes that REB Civ. Practice Standard IV.C.1. applies only to
motions and not to other types of briefing, so it is not applicable to the filing at issue here.
Pursuant to REB Civ. Practice Standard IV.B.2., the District Judge only permits a total of
fifteen pages for each response. Plaintiff’s Response is twenty-nine pages, not including
the Certificate of Service. Thus, Plaintiff has submitted fourteen pages more than the
number permitted by the District Judge’s Civil Practice Standards. Although Plaintiff’s
Response is a Response to three Motions to Dismiss [#69, #71, #73], only one of which
was filed by the St. Anthony Defendants [#69], Plaintiff has not sought leave of the Court
to file a combined Response or to file a Response in excess of the permitted fifteen pages.
Nothing in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules, or the District Judge’s
Civil Practice Standards allows him to automatically do so. Although Plaintiff has litigated
before the District Judge and the undersigned in multiple cases and should be familiar with
the applicable rules and standards, as he must be despite proceeding as a pro se litigant,
see Nielson v. Price, 17 F.3d 1276, 1277 (10th Cir. 1994), the Court does not strike this
filing pursuant to REB Civ. Practice Standard IV.C.2., as Plaintiff may have been confused
regarding page limitations when responding to multiple motions. However, Plaintiff is
warned that he must seek leave of the Court in the future before filing combined

1

A copy of the District Judge’s Civil Practice Standards can be found and downloaded from:
http://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Documents/Judges/REB/REB_Civil_12-1-11_Final.pdf.

-2-

responses to motions or before filing any response that exceeds fifteen pages.
Failure to do so in the future will result in such filings being stricken sua sponte or
on motion from opposing counsel.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Strike [#92] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Extension [#93] is GRANTED in
part. The St. Anthony Defendants shall file a Reply to Plaintiff’s Response [#86] on or
before February 15, 2013.
Dated: February 1, 2013

-3-