Opinion
Case No. 2:12-cv-01023-APG-CWH
10-01-2014
DEBRA JENE PATEL-JULSON, Plaintiff, v. PAUL SMITH LAS VEGAS, INC, Defendant.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion (#123), filed September 29, 2014. Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis and is litigating the case pro se. Courts are to broadly construe pleadings filed by pro se litigants and give such plaintiffs "the benefit of any doubt." See, e.g., Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1027 n. 1 (9th Cir.1985). Nevertheless, even pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir.1987); see also Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th Cir.1986) ("pro se litigants in the ordinary civil case should not be treated more favorable than parties with attorneys of record"); Carter v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir.1986) (pro se litigants expected to abide by the rules of the court in which litigation proceeds).
It is not clear what relief, if any, Plaintiff is seeking. The motion is styled as a motion of "disrespect." Plaintiff appears to be simply lodging an opinion that opposing counsel has treated her disrespectfully during the course of these proceedings. No question, there have been signs of acrimony and animosity throughout this matter. The Court has, on more than one occasion, requested that the parties behave in a more civil manner in their communications and dealings with each other. Even so, motions of the kind under consideration here are not necessary. Looking at the motion, it looks as though, in addition to requesting that defense counsel give her respect, Plaintiff seeks an order striking Defendant's response (#122) because she was not served with the motion in a timely manner. The response includes a certificate of service, as required by Local Rule 5-1, which indicates that it was served on Plaintiff via United States Mail. That it may not have arrived within three days does not require that the Court strike the response. Normally, the Court would invite Plaintiff to request additional time to reply if needed, but Plaintiff filed her reply (#124) on September 30, 2014. Thus, no action is necessary.
Based on the foregoing and good cause appearing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion (#123) is denied.
DATED: October 1, 2014.
/s/_________
C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge