Flemming v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 3/17/14 re: 8 Letter. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint on or before April 18, 2014. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff fails to cure the deficiencies designated in the Order [#7], the Court will recommend that the Complaint [#1] and the action be dismissed without further notice. (lag)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-00567-RM-KLM
MICHAEL D. FLEMMING,
WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE,
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s untitled letter dated March 14, 2014 [#8]1
(the “Letter”). In the Letter Plaintiff states that he received the Court’s Order [#7]. Letter
[#8] at 1. Plaintiff further indicates that he believes the Order to mean that he must submit
additional documents. Id. Accordingly, Plaintiff attaches ten pages of documents to his
As an initial matter, Plaintiff is under a legal obligation to comply with the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules in this District, and all orders of this Court. See
Green v. Dorrell, 969 F.2d 915, 917 (10th Cir. 1992). To the extent that Plaintiff feels that
he cannot bear the responsibility at this time, he may voluntarily dismiss his case without
prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a).
In order to more fully explain the
“[#1]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to
a specific paper by the Court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I
use this convention throughout this Order.
responsibilities Plaintiff now bears as a pro se litigant, the Court has attached a letter as
an exhibit to this Order.
The Court further informs Plaintiff that if he would like to request relief from the
Court, he must file a motion stating what relief he is requesting and the basis for that relief.
See D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1. A document like the Letter is not a motion and, therefore, the
Court will take no action in response to any similar filings. However, in this one limited
circumstance, the Court will address the Letter because it is clear that Plaintiff has
misunderstood the Order [#7].
In the Order the Court explained the legal standard that a complaint must meet. See
Order [#7] at 1-2. The Court then explained that Plaintiff’s Title VII Complaint failed to
include necessary information. Id. at 2-3. As a result, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an
amended complaint. Id. at 3. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s filing of the Letter [#8] and the
attached exhibits does not comply with the Court’s Order and does not remedy the
problems with Plaintiff’s Title VII Complaint [#1]. The Court will not permit piecemeal
adjudication of Plaintiff’s case, thus Plaintiff must include all claims he seeks to bring and
persons or entities he intends to name as defendants in the amended complaint. Further,
Plaintiff may attach documents as exhibits to his amended complaint, but he may not
supplement a complaint by filing documents attached to a different document. Because
of Plaintiff’s confusion regarding the Order [#7], the Court will sua sponte extend Plaintiff’s
deadline to file his amended complaint. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint on or before
April 18, 2014.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff fails to cure the deficiencies designated
in the Order [#7], the Court will recommend that the Complaint [#1] and the action be
dismissed without further notice.
Dated: March 17, 2014
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?