Opinion
CV-22-00540-TUC-JCH (JR) CV-22-00290-TUC-JCH
03-10-2023
Lawrence H Hobbs, Plaintiff, v. M3 Engineering & Technology Corporation, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Honorable John C. Hinderaker United States District Judge
Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff's Motion to File Excess Pages (Doc. 26). Plaintiff simultaneously lodged an 89-page "Responsive Memorandum In Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiffs Counter Motions for Striking Defendants Pleading, Default Judgment, and/or[] Summary Judgment" (Doc. 27.) Plaintiff states he must exceed the local 17-page limit for motions because "everything which is required to be said, must be said without limitation" and because "three (3) counter motions are included herein, thus additional pagination [should be] allowed pursuant to those three motions." Doc. 26 at 2.
The Court is mindful of its obligation to treat pro se litigants liberally when it comes to procedural requirements. See, e.g., Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). For that reason, the Court will grant Plaintiff's Motion to the extent he seeks excusal from the page limit to respond to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8). But the Court will also deny in part without prejudice to the extent Plaintiff seeks to mix his response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss with a motion to strike, a motion for default judgment, and a motion for summary judgment. If Plaintiff wishes to move to strike, for default judgment, or for summary judgment, he is obliged to file those motions separately and distinctly-and to comply with the local rules when doing so.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED GRANTING IN PART Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. 26) to the extent it seeks relief to respond to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. 26) to the extent it seeks relief to file multiple motions together with his response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DIRECTING the Clerk of the Court to file Plaintiff's proposed Responsive Memorandum (Doc. 27).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DIRECTING Defendants to reply to Plaintiff's Responsive Memorandum (Doc. 27) to the extent it responds to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8) under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 12. Defendants shall respond no later than March 24, 2023.