Kailey v. Ritter

Full title: RANDY KAILEY, Plaintiff, v. BILL RITTER, JR., Governor for the State of…

Court: United States District Court, D. Colorado

Date published: Aug 12, 2011

Civil Action No. 11-cv-00614-REB-BNB (D. Colo. Aug. 12, 2011)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 11-cv-00614-REB-BNB.

August 12, 2011

ORDER

BOYD BOLAND, Magistrate JudgePage 2

This matter arises on the plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. #24, filed 08/10/2011].

The defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss [Doc. #15] on June 6, 2011. On June 7, 2011, I ordered the plaintiff to respond [Doc. #17] to the Motion to Dismiss, and I granted him an extension of time to respond until August 11, 2011 [Doc. #23].

Rather than filing a response to the defendants' Motion to Dismiss, the plaintiff filed the Motion for Summary Judgment. The Motion for Summary Judgment does not set forth any undisputed material facts or supporting evidence. To the contrary, the Motion for Summary Judgment is simply a response to the defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Doc. #15]. Indeed, the plaintiff states that it is filed "in accordance with [the court's] Order of June 7, 2011." Therefore, I construe the Motion for Summary Judgment as a response to the defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

To the extent the plaintiff is attempting to include a motion in his response, "[a] motion shall not be included in a response or reply to the original motion. A motion shall be made in a separate paper." D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1C.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. #24] is construed as a response to the defendants' Motion to Dismiss;

(2) To the extent the plaintiff is attempting to include a Motion for Summary Judgment in his response, such motion is DENIED pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1C.; and

(3) The Minute Order issued August 11, 2011 [Doc. #26] is VACATED.¹

1 The Minute Order directs the defendants to respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment.