Opinion
Civil Action No. 07-cv-02626-EWN-MEH.
April 17, 2008
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's "Motion to Suppress and Dismiss Defendants (Motion to Dismiss dated June 1, 2008)" [sic] and "Motion to Suppress and Dismiss Defendant's Brief" [filed April 16, 2008; doc #33]. The motions have been referred to this Court for disposition [doc. #34]. Oral argument would not materially assist the Court in the disposition of these motions. For the reasons set forth below, the motions are denied without prejudice.
The Court must liberally construe the Plaintiff's pro se pleadings, but does not "assume the role of advocate." Ledbetter v. City of Topeka, 318 F.3d 1183, 1187-88 (10th Cir. 2003). Here, the Court construes the Plaintiff's motions as requests to strike any dispositive motion Defendant may file on or before the June 1, 2008 deadline, along with any brief and supporting exhibits that may accompany the Defendant's motion. Such requests are not ripe for ruling unless and until the Defendant files a dispositive motion. As set forth in this Court's March 28, 2008 order, Plaintiff may respond to any dispositive motion filed by Defendant within 23 days after the motion is filed [doc #32]. Therefore, the Court will deny without prejudice the within motions; the Plaintiff may file a response to Defendant's dispositive motion or may re-file her own motions at the appropriate time.