Weathington v. United States of America, et al

Filing 31

MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 3/5/15.Plaintiff' Second Motion Opposing Defendants[] Motion for Summary Judgement [sic] Based on Failure to Exhaust [#30] is DENIED. (lgale, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-02601-KLM
JEROME WEATHINGTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
OFFICER GAFFNEY, and
WARDEN DANIELS,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion Opposing Defendants[’]
Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Failure to Exhaust [#25]1 (the “First Motion”)
and Plaintiff’s Second Motion Opposing Defendants[’] Motion for Summary
Judgement [sic] Based on Failure to Exhaust [#30] (the “Second Motion” and
collectively with the First Motion, the “Motions”).2 The Motions each purport to respond to
Defendant’s [sic] Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Failure to Exhaust [#22] (the
“Motion for Summary Judgment”).
A pro se litigant must follow the same procedural rules that govern other litigants,
including the Local Rules of this Court and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Nielson
v. Price, 17 F.3d 1276, 1277 (10th Cir. 1994); Pallottino v. City of Rio Rancho, 425 F.App’x
710, 713 (10th Cir. 2011) (unpublished decision) (“[T]he pro se status of [Plaintiffs] does
not relieve them of their obligations to comply with procedural rules . . . .”); see also Indiana
v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164, 185 (2008) (“A pro se defendant may not . . . fail to comply with
relevant rules of procedural . . . law.” (quotation marks and citation omitted)); Kennington

1

“[#25]” 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 Minute Order.
2

The Court notes that despite its title, the First Motion was not docketed as a motion. The
Second Motion was docketed as a motion and, therefore, requires the Court to issue a ruling.

1

v. U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury, 490 F.App’x 939, 942 n.1 (10th Cir. 2012) (table decision)
(disregarding letter submission by pro se party that did not follow procedural rules).
D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d) states that a “responding party shall have 21 days after the date
of service of a motion . . . to file a response.” The rule also provides that the party that filed
the motion at issue may file a reply in further support of the motion up to 14 days after
service of the response. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(b)(1), a motion is a “request for
a court order . . . .” Therefore, it is improper for Plaintiff to file a motion as a response to
the Motion for Summary Judgment. It is also improper for Plaintiff to file two responses to
the Motion for Summary Judgment because D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d) only allows him to file
“a response.”
The Court will accept one of the Motions as Plaintiff’s response to the Motion for
Summary Judgment if he wishes the Court to do so. Alternatively, Plaintiff may file a new
response to the Motion for Summary Judgment and the Court will strike the Motions from
the record. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, to the extent that it requires a ruling, the Second
Motion [#30] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s deadline to respond to the Motion for
Summary Judgment [#22] is extended to March 27, 2015.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, on or before March 27, 2015, Plaintiff shall file
either: (1) a Notice informing the Court that he would like it to treat either the First Motion
[#25] or the Second Motion [#30] as his response to the Motion for Summary Judgment,
or (2) a new response to the Motion for Summary Judgment [#22].
Dated: March 5, 2015

2