Anthony v. City and County of Denver

Filing 253

ORDER. It is ORDERED (1) that Plaintiff's Answer and separate statements (ECF Nos. 249 and 250 ) are hereby STRICKEN; and (2) that Plaintiff is granted leave to file a compliant response and separate statement, with supporting evidence, by Th ursday, February 25, 2021. The Court strongly encourages Plaintiff to contact the Federal Pro Se Clinic which provides free assistance to people representing themselves in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. By Judge Raymond P. Moore on February 19, 2021. (rvill, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Raymond P. Moore
Civil Action No. 16-cv-01223-RM-NYW
THOMAS R. ANTHONY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, a Colorado home rule municipality, and
ANTHONY SANDOVAL, Denver Zoning Department Technician, in his official capacity,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiff appears pro se, so the Court construes
his filings liberally. Nonetheless, Plaintiff must follow the same procedural rules as other
litigants. Here, even a cursory review shows issues with Plaintiff’s “Answer” (ECF No. 249) and
Separate Statement of Additional Material Facts (ECF No. 250-1).
First, it appears Plaintiff is improperly using many footnotes to make arguments in order
to circumvent the page limitations. The Court will not consider such arguments in footnotes.
Second, at least one footnote (footnote 4) (ECF No. 249, p. 4) appears to be a conditional
request for additional time to obtain evidence. Such a request may not be made in a footnote or a
response brief. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d) (“A motion shall not be included in a response or
reply to the original motion. A motion shall be filed as a separate document.”). Plaintiff is
reminded that his supporting papers must comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and applicable law.

Finally, Plaintiff’s Separate Statement (ECF No. 250-1) includes a third column
(“Plaintiff’s Reply…”). The Court’s Civil Practice Standards do not allow for a reply by the nonmovant.
Because Plaintiff proceeds pro se, the Court will allow Plaintiff one final opportunity to
file a compliant response, along with supporting evidence. Accordingly, it is ORDERED
(1) that Plaintiff's Answer and separate statements (ECF Nos. 249 and 250) are hereby
STRICKEN; and
(2) that Plaintiff is granted leave to file a compliant response and separate statement, with
supporting evidence, by Thursday, February 25, 2021.
The Court strongly encourages Plaintiff to contact the Federal Pro Se Clinic which
provides free assistance to people representing themselves in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado. The Clinic cannot assist with criminal, bankruptcy, habeas, appeals, or any
state cases. If Plaintiff wishes to avail himself of this service, he may make an appointment by
phone [phone]) or online at www.cobar.org/cofederalproseclinic. The Clinic is located at:
Alfred A. Arraj Courthouse (first floor), 901 19th Street, Denver, CO 80294.
DATED this 19th day of February, 2021.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
RAYMOND P. MOORE
United States District Judge

2