Shinault v. Foster et al
Filing
39
ORDER re: 36 Proposed Scheduling Order, 37 Proposed Scheduling Order filed by Telela Shinault. IT IS ORDERED that Documents 36 and 37 are STRICKEN. By Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 03/01/13. (alvsl)
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland
Civil Action No. 12-cv-00639-RBJ-BNB
TELELA SHINAULT,
Plaintiff,
v.
DPD SERGEANT TONY FOSTER, and
DPD OFFICER R. MAGOT,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
Before me are two papers filed by the plaintiff titled Civil Scheduling Order [Docs.
#36 and #37] (the “Papers”). The Papers are STRICKEN.
The Papers are deficient for several reasons. First, the plaintiff does not certify that she
served a copy of the Papers on counsel for the defendants. Copies of papers filed in this court
must be served on counsel for all other parties (or directly on any party acting pro se) in
compliance with Rule 5, Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 5 provides that all pleadings filed after the original
complaint and all written motions, notices, demands, or any similar paper must be served on
every party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a). “If a party is represented by an attorney, service under this
rule must be made on the attorney . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b). Service upon other parties may be
by mail. Id. Proof that service has been made is provided by a certificate of service. Id. at 5(d).
This certificate should be included in the original papers and should show the day and manner of
service. Id.
In addition, although titled “Civil Scheduling Order,” they are not scheduling orders at
all.1 In Document #37, the plaintiff seeks an extension of time to make her Rule 26 disclosures.2
“A request for a court order must be made by motion.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1). “The rules
governing captions and other matters of form in pleadings apply to motions and other papers.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(2). The plaintiff improperly submitted a request in the form of an order--not
in the form of a motion, as required.
Finally, Document #36 is largely incomprehensible, and does not seek any specific relief
from the court. The plaintiff accuses the defendants’ counsel of lying during the Scheduling
Conference and in the proposed scheduling order. These issues were discussed and resolved at
the Scheduling Conference. The plaintiff had an opportunity to assert--and did assert--her
arguments then. Document #36 is an improper attempt to reargue the issues.
IT IS ORDERED that Documents ##36 and 37 are STRICKEN.
Dated March 1, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge
I entered the Scheduling Order [Doc. #35] on February 19, 2013.
1
The plaintiff states that she needs an extension of time because she is a senior citizen
and is mentally and physically disabled. She does not explain how her age and disabilities
prevent her from complying with the deadline. Moreover, if the plaintiff is mentally or
physically unable to prosecute her case, she must secure appointment of a guardian and engage
the services of an attorney.
2
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
