Watts v. Shulman et al

Filing 41

MINUTE ORDER denying 37 Motion to Set Aside. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may file a response to Defendants Colvin and Simmons' Motion to Dismiss (# 30 ) on or before July 12, 2013. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 06/25/13. (alvsl) (Main Document 41 replaced on 6/26/2013 in order to correct technical issues) (alvsl).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-02993-RM-KLM
HOWARD M. WATTS, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
DOUGLAS SHULMAN, Commissioner IRS,
MICHAEL ASTRUE, Commissioner SSA,
CAROLYN SIMMONS, Associate Commissioner,
ANNETTE STREETER, Appeals Area Director, IRS,
J. TRUJILLO, Collections Agent, IRS, and
ELLEN DEMITRE, Tax Payer Advocate, IRS,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside: Motion to
Dismiss [Docket No. 37; Filed June 13, 2013] (the “Motion”). On June 20, 2013,
Defendants filed a Response. Plaintiff has not yet filed a Reply.1 In the Motion, Plaintiff
asks the Court to “set aside” the Motion to Dismiss [#30] filed by Defendants Colvin2 and
Simmons. Motion [#37] at 1. As a basis for the requested relief, Plaintiff appears to argue
the merits of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [#30]. In addition, Plaintiff cites to no legal
authority for the relief he requests.
In their Response, Defendants Colvin and Simmons assume that the Motion was a
response to their Motion to Dismiss [#30] and, therefore, title their pleading “Reply in
Support of Defendants Colvin and Simmons’ Motion to Dismiss.” See generally Resp.

1

Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1C, the Court may rule on a pending motion at any time.

2

Carolyn W. Colvin was not named in Plaintiff’s Complaint, but the Motion to Dismiss
argues that pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d), she should be substituted for Michael Astrue since
she became the Acting Commissioner of Social Security on February 14, 2013. Motion to Dismiss
[#30] at 1 n.1. As a result, for purposes of this Order, the Court will refer to the motion as being
filed on behalf of Defendants Colvin and Simmons.

1

[#40].
If Plaintiff’s intention was to file a response to the Motion to Dismiss [#30], he must
file a separate document, not a motion, which clearly responds to the arguments articulated
by Defendants Colvin and Simmons in the Motion to Dismiss.
Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1C a response may be filed up to 21 days after a
Motion is filed. Therefore, Plaintiff’s deadline to file a response to the Motion to Dismiss
[#30] was June 21, 2013. However, taking Plaintiff’s pro se status into account, the Court
will allow Plaintiff additional time in which to file a response to the Motion to Dismiss [#30]
which complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules, the District
Judge’s Practice Standards, and the undersigned’s Practice Standards. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#37] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may file a response to Defendants Colvin
and Simmons’ Motion to Dismiss [#30] on or before July 12, 2013.
Dated: June 26, 2013

2