Parke-Bell Ltd., Inc. v. Taylor
Filing
13
MINUTE ORDER. The Clerk of Court is ORDERED to docket this Motion (docket no. 10) as the Pro Se Defendant's Answer and Counterclaim and delete such Motion (docket no. 10) from the current motions list. ORDERED that the Pro Se Defendant shall file with this court an Amended Answer and Counterclaim consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 7 (a)(3) on or before March 29, 2013 by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 03/06/13.(jjhsl, )
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-00227-WYD-MJW
PARKE-BELL LTD., INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
BOBBI TAYLOR d/b/a A TOUCH OF CLASS INTERIORS,
Defendant.
MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
The Pro Se Defendant Bobbie Taylor has filed a handwritten document with this
court captioned “Motion” (docket no. 10) and this court has throughly and carefully
reviewed this document. In reviewing this document, in a light most favorable to the Pro
Se Defendant, I find that the Pro Se Defendant’s document is actually an Answer and a
proposed Counterclaim to the Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 7 (a)(3). However,
such document does not fully comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 7. Accordingly, the Clerk of
Court is ORDERED to docket this “Motion” (docket no. 10) as the Pro Se Defendant’s
Answer and Counterclaim and delete such “Motion” (docket no. 10) from the current
motions list.
Pro Se litigants must “comply with the fundamental requirements of the Federal
Rules of Civil . . . Procedure.” Odgen v. San Juan County, 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir.
1994). The fact that a party is appearing pro se does not relieve that individual from the
obligation of complying with all applicable rules of the court. Nielson v. Price, 17 F.3d
1276, 1277 (10th Cir. 1994) (pro se plaintiffs are held to the same rules of procedure
which apply to other litigants); Hall v. Doering, 997 F. Supp. 1464, 1468 (D. Kan. 1998);
People v. Carter, 678 F. Supp. 1484, 1490 (D. Colo. 1986). It is not the proper function
of the district court to assume the role of advocate for the pro se litigant. Gibson v. City
of Cripple Creek, 48 F.3d 1231 (10th Cir. 1995).
It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Pro Se Defendant shall file with this court an
Amended Answer and Counterclaim consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 7 (a)(3) on or before
March 29, 2013. The Pro Se Defendant’s Amended Answer must address each
averment within the Plaintiff’s Complaint (docket no. 1). In addition, the Pro Se
Defendant’s Counterclaim(s) must be plead with more specificity as to the type of
Counterclaim(s) being brought, the factual averments that support such
Counterclaim(s), the law that the Pro Se Defendant is relying upon to prosecute such
Counterclaim(s), and lastly the specific damages the Pro Se Defendant is seeking on
her Counterclaim(s).
Date: March 6, 2013
]]>
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?
