Brown v. Shoe

Filing 25

MINUTE ORDER denying 23 Motion for Award of Costs and Compensation for Time of Pro Se Efforts; denying 24 Motion for Order Certifying Questions of Law to the Colorado Supreme Court by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 03/30/2016.(mdave, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-02730-MEH
WESLEY R. WOLF BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v.
BECKY SHOE, Supervisor, Insta Check Unit, Colorado Bureau of Investigation,
Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on March 30, 2016.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Award of Costs and Compensation for Time of Pro Se Efforts [filed
March 29, 2016; docket #23] is denied. Plaintiff brings his motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54
and, as he concedes, there has been no judgment in this case.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Certifying Questions of Law to the Colorado Supreme Court
[filed March 29, 2016; docket #24] is denied. Should the Court determine at the appropriate time
whether a question needs to be certified to the Colorado Supreme Court, it will do so. At this stage
of the litigation, the only matters before the Court (but which are not yet ripe for adjudication) are
whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendant in her official
capacity and whether Plaintiff’s Complaint states plausible claims for relief. See Motion to Dismiss,
docket #11.
Finally, the Court warns the Plaintiff that his motions fail to comply with D.C. Colo. LCivR
7.1(a) which states,
Before filing a motion, counsel for the moving party or an unrepresented party
shall confer or make reasonable good faith efforts to confer with any opposing
counsel or unrepresented party to resolve any disputed matter. The moving party
shall describe in the motion, or in a certificate attached to the motion, the specific
efforts to fulfill this duty.
The motion does not fall under any exception listed in D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1(b). The Court reminds
the parties of their continuing obligations to comply fully with D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1(a). See
Hoelzel v. First Select Corp., 214 F.R.D. 634, 636 (D. Colo. 2003) (because Rule 7.1(a) requires
meaningful negotiations by the parties, the rule is not satisfied by one party sending the other party
a single email, letter or voicemail). If any future filings fail to comply with this or any other
applicable rule, they may be stricken or denied without prejudice.