Opinion
Civil Action No. 11-cv-03117-PAB-MJW
01-17-2012
BRIAN EDMOND BATH, Plaintiff, v. DYCK O'NEAL and EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendants.
MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
It is hereby ORDERED that the Pro Se Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendant Dyck O'Neal's Motion to Dismiss and Request for Attorney's Fees (docket no. 21) is DENIED finding no basis in law or fact for such relief. I also find that the Pro Se Plaintiff has failed to comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1 A before filing this motion.
Pro Se litigants must "comply with the fundamental requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil and Appellate Procedure." Odgen v. San Juan County, 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994); Hickey v. (NFN) Van Austin et al., 1999 CJC.AR 5979
The fact that a party is appearing pro se does not relieve that individual from the obligation of complying with all applicable rules of the court. Colorado v. Carter, 678 F. Supp. 1484, 1490 (D. Colo. 1986); Hall v. Doering, 997 F. Supp. 1464, 1468 (D. Kan. 1998); Nielson v. Price, 17 F.3d 1276, 1277 (10th Cir. 1994) (pro se plaintiffs are held to the same rules of procedure which apply to other litigants).
It is not the proper function of the district court to assume the role of advocate for the pro se litigant. Gibson v. City of Cripple Creek, 48 F 3d 1231, (10th Cir. 1995).
Furthermore, I find, pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1 C, "...Nothing in this rule precludes a judicial officer from ruling on a motion at any time after it is failed."
It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Pro Se Plaintiff shall have up to and including February 3, 2012, in which to file any response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim on Which Relief May be Granted (docket no. 19).
It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Pro Se Plaintiff shall use the correct case number on all future filings with this court. The correct case number is 11-cv-03117- PAB-MJW and NOT 11-cv-03117-BNB.