Smith v. Lake Travis I.S.D.

Filing 17

ORDER GRANTING (contained within) 16 Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (ml)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION CATRINA SMITH, § § § § § § § § § § Plaintiff, v. LAKE TRAVIS I.S.D., Defendant. 1:17-CV-393-RP ORDER Before the Court is the above-styled cause of action, in which Plaintiff Catrina Smith is proceeding pro se. In a Response to Defendant Lake Travis I.S.D.’s Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff referenced several new “reasons and documentation to prove [her] charges against the defendant.” (Resp., Dkt. 15, at 1). Included in Defendant’s Reply was a Motion to Strike those statements, which argued that “Plaintiff should be limited to the facts pled in her Complaint.” (Reply, Dkt. 16, ¶ 7). That Motion was filed on August 18, 2017. (Id.). The Court has previously directed Plaintiff to the Local Rule governing deadlines for responses and replies, which states that responses to nondispositive motions are due no later than 7 days after the filing of the motion. (W.D. Tex. Local Rule CV-7(e)(2)). Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s Motion to Strike was therefore due on or before August 25, 2017. The Court’s record reflects that no response has been filed. When there is no response filed within the time period described above, the Court is permitted to grant the motion in question as unopposed. (W.D. Tex. Local Rule CV-7(e)(2)). This is true even when a party is proceeding pro se, as “pro se parties must still comply with the rules of procedure.” Ogbodiegwu v. Wackenhut Corrs. Corp., 202 F.3d 265, 1999 WL 1131884, at *2 (5th Cir. 1 1999) (per curiam). “‘The notice afforded by the Rules of Civil Procedure and the local rules’ is ‘sufficient’ to advise pro se litigants of their burden;” and “no ‘particularized additional notice’ for pro se litigants is required.” Thorn v. McGary, 2017 WL 1279222, at *2 (5th Cir. April 5, 2017) (quoting Martin v. Harrison Cty. Jail, 975 F.2d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1992) (per curiam)). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Strike, contained within its Reply to the pending Motion to Dismiss, (Dkt. 16; docket entry dated August, 18 2017), is HEREBY GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk’s Office mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff via certified mail. Plaintiff’s address is listed as 7100 Dallas Drive in Austin, Texas, 78729. SIGNED on September 7, 2017. _____________________________________ ROBERT PITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

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?