Webb v. Weber County Government et al

Filing 94

MEMORANDUM DECISION granting 73 Motion for Joinder; granting 79 Motion to Strike. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 1/22/14. (jlw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, NORTHERN DIVISION

DAVID WEBB,
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM DECISION

v.

Case No. 1:11-cv-00128-DB-DBP

TIMOTHY SCOTT, et al.,

District Judge Dee Benson

Defendants.

I.

Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead

INTRODUCTION

This civil rights matter was referred to the Court under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Pro se
Plaintiff is David Webb. The Court splits relevant Defendants into two groups. The Ogden City
Defendants are the following: (1) Timothy Scott, a police officer with the Ogden City Police
Department; (2) K. Murray, a police officer with the Ogden City Police Department; and (3) Jon
J. Greiner, Chief of Police for the Ogden City Police Department. The Weber County
Defendants are the following: (1) Terry L. Thompson, the Weber County Sheriff; (2) Kevin
McCleod, the Weber County Undersheriff; (3) Kevin Burton, the Corrections Division Chief
Deputy for Weber County Correctional Facility; (4) R. West, a Sergeant at Weber County
Correctional Facility; (5) R. Johnson, a Sergeant at Weber County Correctional Facility; and (6)
A. Flatt, a correctional officer at Weber County Correctional Facility.

Page 1 of 4

The Court now considers the Weber County Defendants’ motion for joinder (Docket No. 73)
as well as their motion to strike a memorandum Plaintiff filed (Dkt. No. 79). For the reasons
below, the Court GRANTS both motions.
II.

MOTION FOR JOINDER

On November 22, 2013, Plaintiff filed a document entitled “FRCP Authorizes Plaintiff’s
Motions to Hold Both Ogden City & Weber County Defendants Liable for Non-preservation of
Relevant Discovery.” (Dkt. No. 66.) On December 6, 2013, the Ogden City Defendants filed
their opposition to Plaintiff’s document. (Dkt. No. 72.) On December 9, 2013, the Weber
County Defendants filed the present motion for joinder in the Ogden City Defendants’
opposition. (Dkt. No. 73.)
Neither Plaintiff nor the Ogden City Defendants responded to the motion for joinder, and the
time to do so has expired. See DUCivR 7-1(b)(3)(B); id. 7-1(d) (“Failure to respond timely to a
motion may result in the court’s granting the motion without further notice.”). Given the lack of
opposition, the Court GRANTS the Weber County Defendants’ motion for joinder. (Dkt. No.
73.)
III.

MOTION TO STRIKE

On November 27, 2013, Plaintiff filed a memorandum to support the following motions: (1)
his motions to hold Defendants liable for not preserving discovery (Dkt. Nos. 41; 52; 55); and (2)
his summary judgment motions (Dkt. Nos. 46; 48). (Dkt. No. 69.) 1 On December 30, 2013, the
Weber County Defendants filed the present motion to strike Plaintiff’s memorandum. (Dkt. No.

1

Plaintiff titled his document “Memorandum of Points and Authorities Supporting Summary
Judgment Motions & Affidavits – Docket No’s: 41, 46, 48, 52, 54, 55, 60 . . . .” (Dkt. No. 69.)
Page 2 of 4

79.) Plaintiff has not responded to the Weber County Defendants’ motion, and the time to do so
has expired.
The Weber County Defendants argue the Court should strike Plaintiff’s memorandum
because it fails to comply with DUCivR 7-1(a)(1) 2 where Plaintiff failed to submit the
memorandum “as one document with any particular motion.” (Dkt. No. 79 at 2.) The Weber
County Defendants also claim that Plaintiff’s memorandum “does not bring any new information
before the Court.” (Id.)
The Court appreciates Plaintiff’s pro se status. See Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1
(10th Cir. 2008) (stating that courts must “liberally construe pro se filings . . . .”). Nevertheless,
pro se parties must still “follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.” Nielsen
v. Price, 17 F.3d 1276, 1277 (10th Cir. 1994) (quotation omitted). To that end, the Court shares
the Weber County Defendants’ concerns about Plaintiff’s failure to comply with DUCivR 71(a)(1). Moreover, the Court agrees that Plaintiff’s memorandum offers information available in
Plaintiff’s other filings with the Court. For these reasons, the Court GRANTS the Weber
County Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiff’s memorandum at Docket No. 69. (Dkt. No. 79.) 3
IV.

ORDERS

For the reasons stated above, the Court issues the following ORDERS:
The Court GRANTS the Weber County Defendants’ motion for joinder. (Dkt. No. 73.)
2

DUCivR 7-1(a)(1) states that a “motion and any supporting memorandum must be contained in
one document . . . .” The rule further states that failure to comply with such requirements “may
result in sanctions . . . .” Id. 7-1(a)(1)(B).
3

The Court urges Plaintiff to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s
Local Rules of Practice when he files future documents. The Court especially points Plaintiff to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 7 and DUCivR 7-1, which govern motions practice. Plaintiff may access these
rules at http://www.utd.uscourts.gov/documents/rulepage.html. The Court also refers Plaintiff to
the Pro Se Litigant Guide available from the list of forms at
http://www.utd.uscourts.gov/documents/formpage.html.
Page 3 of 4

The Court GRANTS the Weber County Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiff’s
memorandum at Docket No. 69. (Dkt. No. 79.)
Dated this 22nd day of January, 2014.

By the Court:

Dustin B. Pead
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 4 of 4