Opinion
Civil Action No. 11-cv-02291-REB-MJW
04-05-2012
VERNE JAY MERRELL, Plaintiff(s), v. DAVID ALLRED, D.O. FCC Health Services, and PATRICIA MITCHELL, Program Mgt [sic] Officer, Health Services, in their individual and professional capacities, Defendant(s).
Date: April 5, 2012
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
It is hereby ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Strike or in the Alternative for Leave to File Surreply (docket no. 42) is GRANTED for the following reasons. The Pro Se Incarcerated Plaintiff's Response [Surreply] (docket no. 40) is STRICKEN.
The United States District Court for the District of Colorado Local Rules of Practice effective December 1, 2011, do not contemplate surreplies. Further, D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1 C states, in pertinent part, "...[N]othing in this rule precludes a judicial officer from ruling on a motion at any time after it is filed." 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).