Patel v. Smith

Filing 125

ORDER Denying 123 Plaintiff's Motion of Disrespect. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 10/1/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8
9
10
11
12
13

DEBRA JENE PATEL-JULSON,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
PAUL SMITH LAS VEGAS, INC,
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:12-cv-01023-APG-CWH
ORDER

14
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion (#123), filed September 29, 2014. Plaintiff
15
is proceeding in forma pauperis and is litigating the case pro se. Courts are to broadly construe
16
pleadings filed by pro se litigants and give such plaintiffs “the benefit of any doubt.” See, e.g., Bretz v.
17
Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1027 n. 1 (9th Cir.1985). Nevertheless, even pro se litigants must comply with
18
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir.1987); see also
19
Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th Cir.1986) (“pro se litigants in the ordinary civil case should
20
not be treated more favorable than parties with attorneys of record”); Carter v. Comm'r of Internal
21
Revenue, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir.1986) (pro se litigants expected to abide by the rules of the court
22
in which litigation proceeds).
23
It is not clear what relief, if any, Plaintiff is seeking. The motion is styled as a motion of
24
“disrespect.” Plaintiff appears to be simply lodging an opinion that opposing counsel has treated her
25
disrespectfully during the course of these proceedings. No question, there have been signs of acrimony
26
and animosity throughout this matter. The Court has, on more than one occasion, requested that the
27
parties behave in a more civil manner in their communications and dealings with each other. Even so,
28
motions of the kind under consideration here are not necessary. Looking at the motion, it looks as

1

though, in addition to requesting that defense counsel give her respect, Plaintiff seeks an order striking

2

Defendant’s response (#122) because she was not served with the motion in a timely manner. The

3

response includes a certificate of service, as required by Local Rule 5-1, which indicates that it was

4

served on Plaintiff via United States Mail. That it may not have arrived within three days does not

5

require that the Court strike the response. Normally, the Court would invite Plaintiff to request

6

additional time to reply if needed, but Plaintiff filed her reply (#124) on September 30, 2014. Thus, no

7

action is necessary.

8

Based on the foregoing and good cause appearing,

9

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion (#123) is denied.

10

DATED: October 1, 2014.

11
12
13

______________________________________
C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2