Creamer v. Gildemeister et al

Filing 136

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER striking 127 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Kathryn H. Vratil on 3/9/18. (hw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
MARJORIE A. CREAMER,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
S. GILDEMEISTER,
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)

CIVIL ACTION
No. 15-4871-KHV

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On April 28, 2015, plaintiff pro se filed this suit against Officer Stefan Gildemeister of the
Hays, Kansas Police Department. Complaint (Doc. #1). Liberally construed, the complaint alleges
that defendant violated her Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and seeks damages under
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. On February 28, 2017, Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James declared plaintiff
legally incompetent and appointed counsel to represent her. Memorandum And Order Denying
Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss And Appointing Counsel To Represent Plaintiff (Doc. #79). This
matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s pro se Motion For Summary Judgment (Doc. #127) filed
January 10, 2018.
Rule 11(a), Fed. R. Civ. P., states that:
Every pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one
attorney of record in the attorney’s name–or by a party personally if the party is
unrepresented. . . . The court must strike an unsigned paper unless the omission is
promptly corrected after being called to the attorney’s or party’s attention.
(emphasis added). Plaintiff signed the pending motion, but counsel of record did not. On
January 31, 2017, defendant responded to plaintiff’s motion and placed plaintiff and her attorney
on notice of the Rule 11(a) violation. See Defendant’s Response In Opposition To Plaintiff’s

Motion For Summary Judgment (Doc. #133) at 1. Neither plaintiff nor counsel have “promptly
corrected” the error. Accordingly, the Court strikes plaintiff’s Motion For Summary Judgment
(Doc. #127).1
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion For Summary Judgment
(Doc. #127) filed January 10, 2018 is STRICKEN.
Dated this 9th day of March, 2018 at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ Kathryn H. Vratil
Kathryn H. Vratil
United States District Judge

1

The Court also notes that plaintiff’s motion does not comply with D. Kan. Rule 56.1,
which governs the summary judgment process. See Memorandum And Order (Doc. #48) filed
January 21, 2016 at 2-3 (overruling motion for summary judgment for Rule 56.1 violation). Any
future motions for summary judgment must comply with Rule 56.1 to give defendant a sufficient
opportunity to respond.
-2-