Lee v. Shinseki

Filing 45

MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 43 Plaintiff's Motion to Stay this Case. By Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 7/26/2013.(mjwcd)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 12-cv-03005-CMA-MJW KATIE V. LEE, Plaintiff, v. ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary - Department of Veterans Affairs, Defendant. MINUTE ORDER Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay this Case (Docket No. 43) is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff has failed to confer with opposing counsel as required by D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A. The court recognizes that plaintiff is proceeding pro se. However, plaintiff is not entitled to the application of different rules. Montoya v. Chao, 296 F.3d 952, 957 (10th Cir. 2002). Furthermore, plaintiff does not specify what efforts she has made to secure the return of her computer. In addition, plaintiff provides no detail as to what documents she requires off of her computer and how those documents are necessary for the prosecution of this matter. Accordingly, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to show good cause. See Ind v. Rusher, No. 12-cv-00997-WJM-KLM, 2012 WL 5389823, at *1 (D. Colo. Nov. 5, 2012) (stating that the party seeking a stay has the burden to demonstrate good cause and cannot sustain that burden through conclusory statements); see also Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Chilcott Portfolio Mgmt., Inc., 713 F.2d 1477, 1484 (10th Cir. 1983) (stating that “the right to proceed in court should not be denied except under the most extreme circumstances”). Date: July 26, 2013

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?