Handy et al v. Board of County Commissioners for the County of Jefferson et al
ORDER GRANTING 94 Motion to Strike 92 Plaintiffs' Response to Motion for Summary Judgment. The Motion [# 94 ] is GRANTED. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment [# 92 ] is STRICKEN. IT IS FURTHER ORD ERED that Plaintiffs shall have until December 23, 2019 to file a response to the motion for summary judgment that complies with Judge Jacksons Practice Standards and the Local Rules. Plaintiffs are warned that failure to file a response that complies with Local Rule of Practice 10.1 and Judge Jackson's practice standards may result in the response being summarily stricken without leave to refile. SO ORDERED by Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews on 12/12/2019. (skclc2)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
U.S. Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews
Civil Action No. 18-cv-00789-RBJ-SKC
WYATT T. HANDY, JR.,
ASHLEE M. HANDY,
TERA L. FISHER, AND
BRANDON H. JOHNSON
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE
TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [#94]
This order addresses Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Response to Motion
for Summary Judgment [#94] (“Motion”). 1 The Court has reviewed the Motion and
Plaintiffs’ Response to Motion for Summary Judgment [#92] (“Response”), which
Defendants seek to strike. The Court has also reviewed the Local Rules of Practice and
District Judge Jackson’s Practice Standards as they pertain to the Motion. While the
Motion is not fully briefed, nothing precludes the Court from ruling on a motion at any time
after it is filed. D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d).
No hearing is necessary to resolve the Motion. The Motion is GRANTED for the
The Court uses “[# __ ]” to refer to docket entries in CM/ECF.
My Practice Standards for Civil Cases inform that “parties shall comply with the
presiding Article III District Judge's practice standards for all motions referred to this
Court.” SKC Practice Standards §E.2. In turn, District Judge Jackson's Practice
Standards provide that responses to summary judgment motions “should not exceed 20
pages.” RBJ Practice Standards at p.2. Further, among other formatting requirements,
Local Rule of Practice 10.1 provides that “[a]ll pleadings and documents shall be double
spaced.” D.C.COLO.LCivR 10.1(e). Taken together, Plaintiffs’ Response may not exceed
20 double-spaced pages.
Plaintiffs’ Response violates Local Rule 10.1(e) because it is single-spaced.
Plaintiffs’ pro se status does not excuse their failure to comply with Rule 10.1(e). See
Shell v. Am. Family Rights Ass'n, 899 F. Supp.2d 1035, 1044 (D. Colo. 2012) (“[P]ro se
status does not relieve a party of the duty to comply with the various rules and procedures
governing litigants and counsel or the requirements of the substantive law, and in these
regards, the Court must apply the same standard to counsel licensed to practice law and
to a pro se party.”). Indeed, Plaintiffs have routinely double-spaced their filings to date.
Because the Response is 17 pages single-spaced, it is evident that, when properly
double-spaced, it would exceed Judge Jackson’s limit of 20-pages. If the Response had
complied with Local Rule 10.1(e), it would have totaled approximately 34 pages doublespaced. Thus, the Response also fails to comply with Judge Jackson’s Practice
The Motion [#94] is GRANTED for these reasons. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’
Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment [#92] is STRICKEN. IT IS FURTHER
ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall have until December 23, 2019 to file a response to the
motion for summary judgment that complies with Judge Jackson’s Practice Standards
and the Local Rules. Plaintiffs are warned that failure to file a response that complies with
Local Rule of Practice 10.1 and Judge Jackson's practice standards may result in the
response being summarily stricken without leave to refile.
DATED: December 12, 2019
BY THE COURT:
S. Kato Crews
United States Magistrate Judge
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?