Harvey v. Werholtz et al

Filing 147

ORDER striking 140 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 141 Motion to Strike ; denying 142 Motion for Order; denying as moot 145 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, by Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang on 4/17/2015.(tscha, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-01574-RBJ-NYW
NATHANIEL JAMES HARVEY, III,
Plaintiff,
v.
CATHERINE SEGURA, in her individual capacity,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________________
Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion
for Summary Judgment (“Motion to Strike”) [#141, filed April 1, 2015] and Defendant’s Motion
for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment [#145,
filed April 16, 2015]. Also before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting the undersigned
Magistrate Judge’s Practice Standards (“Motion Requesting Practice Standards”) [#142, filed
April 13, 2015]. These matters were assigned to this Magistrate Judge pursuant to the Order
Referring Case dated November 5, 2013 [#38] and the memorandum dated April 14, 2015 [#143]
and April 16, 2015 [#146].
I will address Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting Practice Standards first. I have not yet
adopted official practice standards and therefore cannot provide a copy of such to Plaintiff.
Plaintiff is advised to fashion any future filings to comply with the Practice Standards established
by District Judge Jackson, the presiding Judge in this action.

As for Defendant’s Motion to Strike, she asks the court to strike Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion
for Summary Judgment [#140] on the basis that it consists of a 48-page brief, plus 60 pages of
exhibits, plus an attachment of 44 pages [#140-1], for a total of 152 pages. Furthermore,
Defendant argues, Plaintiff did not organize his Cross-Motion to designate a statement of facts,
legal standards, or principal argument.
Although Plaintiff as a pro se litigant is held to a less stringent reading of his pleadings
and papers (Trackwell v. United States Govt, 472 F.3d 1242, 1243 (10th Cir. 2007)), he must
nonetheless follow the same procedural rules that govern all other litigants. Nielsen v. Price, 17
F.3d 1276, 1277 (10th Cir. 1994); Green v. Dorrell, 969 F.2d 915, 917 (10th Cir. 1992) (stating
that pro se parties must “follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.”). Judge
Jackson’s Practice Standards state in unequivocal language that motions for summary judgment
and responses thereto shall be limited to 20 pages. RBJ Practice Standards at 2. Replies to
motions for summary judgment shall not exceed 5 pages. Id. (“I really do mean 20 (and 5) total
pages.”). The court contemplates allowing additional pages only upon motion and a showing of
good cause. Id.
Plaintiff filed his Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment in Judge Jackson’s court and is
thus bound by Judge Jackson’s Practice Standards. Plaintiff did not adhere to those clearly stated
guidelines in drafting his Motion, nor did he seek an extension of the page limit. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Defendant’s Motion to Strike [#141] is GRANTED;
2. Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment [#140] is STRICKEN with leave to
refile in a form that complies with RBJ Practice Standards on or before May 18,
2015;

2 

3. Defendant’s Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for
Summary Judgment [#145] is DENIED AS MOOT; and
4. Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting Practice Standards [#142] is DENIED.

Dated: April 17, 2015

BY THE COURT:
s/Nina Y. Wang__________
United States Magistrate Judge

3