Zimmerman v. Cit Group, Inc.

Full title: RICK L. ZIMMERMAN, Plaintiff, v. THE CIT GROUP, INC., THE CIT…

Court: United States District Court, D. Colorado

Date published: Nov 10, 2008

Civil Action No. 08-cv-00246-ZLW-KLM (D. Colo. Nov. 10, 2008)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 08-cv-00246-ZLW-KLM.

November 10, 2008

ORDER

KRISTEN MIX, Magistrate Judge

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Request for Clarification [Docket No. 86; Filed November 6, 2008] (the "Motion"). The Court must construe the motion liberally because Plaintiff is not represented by an attorney. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10^th Cir. 1991). However, the Court should not be the pro se litigant's advocate. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110.

As a preliminary matter, I find that Plaintiff's Motion must fail because Plaintiff has again failed to fulfill his obligation to confer with the opposing counsel prior to filing his motion, pursuant to D.C.Colo.LCivR. 7.1A. Rule 7.1A states "[t]he court will not consider any motion, other than a motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12 or 56, unless counsel for the moving party or a pro se party, before filing the motion, has conferred or made reasonable, good-faith efforts to confer with opposing counsel or a pro se party to re solve the disputed matter. . . ." Plaintiff's Motion contains no certification pursuant to Rule 7.1A. Plaintiff has been warned by this Court about his obligations pursuant to Rule 7.1A several times, and the Court could summarily deny the Motion on these grounds.

However, the Court also notes that the relief Plaintiff seeks is that the Court clarify whether or not Plaintiff may request that declaratory judgment be entered by motion, as Plaintiff has filed two motions for declaratory judgment dated October 8, 2008 [Docket No. 73 and 74]. Plaintiff's request for clarification is inappropriate for two reasons. First, Plaintiff is essentially seeking legal advice from the Court regarding whether his motions are procedurally proper. The Court may not, and will not, give legal advice to parties, regardless of whether they are proceeding pro se. Second, by requesting this clarification, Plaintiff also, in essence, seeks a ruling on his motions for declaratory judgment. The Court will rule on Plaintiff's motions for declaratory judgment in due course, and Plaintiff may not seek an expedited ruling on his motions for declaratory judgment via a request for clarification.

Accordingly, as set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Request for Clarification [Docket No. 86; Filed November 6, 2008] is DENIED.