Echenique v. Goodwill, Inc.

Filing 53

MINUTE ORDER granting 49 Defendant's Motion to Compel Responses to Defendants First Set of Discovery. Pro Se Plaintiff shall provide to Defendant responses to Defendant's First Set of Discovery on or before December 30, 2013. Each party shall pay their own attorney fees and costs for this motion. By Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 12/5/13.(mnfsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 13-cv-00556-PAB-MJW
IVETTE T. ECHENIQUE,
Plaintiff(s),
v.
GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF DENVER,
Defendant(s).
MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses to
Defendant’s First Set of Discovery (docket no. 49) is GRANTED.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Pro Se Plaintiff shall provide to Defendant
responses to Defendant’s First Set of Discovery on or before December 30, 2013. Each
party shall pay their own attorney fees and costs for this motion.
The Pro Se Plaintiff has failed to file any timely response to the subject motion
(docket no. 49), and this court deems the motion confessed. Pro se litigants must
“comply with the fundamental requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil . . . Procedure.”
Odgen v. San Juan County, 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994). The fact that a party is
appearing pro se does not relieve that individual from the obligation of complying with all
applicable rules of the court. Nielson v. Price, 17 F.3d 1276, 1277 (10th Cir. 1994) (pro
se plaintiffs are held to the same rules of procedure which apply to other litigants); Hall
v. Doering, 997 F. Supp. 1464, 1468 (D. Kan. 1998); People v. Carter, 678 F. Supp.
1484, 1490 (D. Colo. 1986). It is not the proper function of the district court to assume
the role of advocate for the pro se litigant. Gibson v. City of Cripple Creek, 48 F.3d
1231 (10th Cir. 1995).
Date: December 5, 2013