Opinion
Criminal Case No. 10-cr-00317-REB-02
01-17-2012
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. 2. RICHARD KELLOGG ARMSTRONG, Defendant.
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
ORDER STRIKING PAPERS
Blackburn, J.
The matter before me is the Reply to Government's Response to Motion To Answer a Certified Question of Law Related to Jurisdiction in This Case And an Offer of Proof And Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [#396] filed January 13, 2012, by defendant, Richard Kellogg Armstrong. I strike this paper as unauthorized.
As I have done assiduously during the time that Mr. Armstrong has represented himself, I construe his papers liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007); Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th Cir. 2007); Hall v. Belmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972)).
Since the entry of the Trial Preparation Conference Order [#33] on June 25, 2010, all parties, including Mr. Armstrong, have been on notice not to file a reply to a response without approval of the court. See TPC Order [#33] at 1, nt. 2 ("Replies to responses shall not be filed without leave of court."). I reiterated this prohibition recently in my Order Striking Papers [#395] entered January 12, 2012. See Order [#395] at 3, ¶ 4.c. (defendant "shall not file any reply to any response to any pretrial motion without advance leave of the court.").
Notwithstanding my orders, Mr. Armstrong filed this reply without first requesting or receiving permission of this court. Thus, his unauthorized and contumacious paper will be stricken as violative of my orders. Additionally, I will reiterate and asseverate my orders that subject to the penalties for contempt of court, Mr. Armstrong cease and desist from filing a reply without advance leave of this court.
I rehearsed those penalties for Mr. Armstrong in the Order To Show Cause [#378] entered December 16, 2011.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the Reply to Government's Response to Motion To Answer a Certified Question of Law Related to Jurisdiction in This Case And an Offer of Proof And Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [#396] filed January 13, 2012, by defendant, Richard Kellogg Armstrong, is stricken; and
2. That once again the defendant, Richard Kellogg Armstrong, subject to the penalties for contempt of court, shall not file any reply to any response to any pretrial motion without advance leave of the court.
This order does not prohibit or enjoin Mr. Armstrong from filing a motion seeking leave of the court to file a motion or other paper in this case.
--------
Dated January 17, 2012, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
____________
Robert E. Blackburn
United States District Judge