ORDER STRIKING DOCUMENT NO. 64
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Brief in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Summary Judgement (Doc. 66). I find the motion is well-taken and will be granted. No reply brief from Defendants is necessary.
Defendants contend that Plaintiff filed his Brief in Opposition (Doc. 64) after the completion of briefing on Defendants' summary judgment motion, see Docs. 61 and 63, and without Court permission, see D.N.M. LR 7.4(b) (requiring leave of the Court for a surreply). Although Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, Defendants also point out that he is required to "follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants." See Doc. 66 at 1 (citing Murray v. City of Tahlequah, Okl., 312 F.3d 1196, 1199 (10th Cir. 2002)). The Court agrees with Defendants on both counts.
Plaintiff's Response and Opposition to the Defendants' Motion to Strike (Doc. 69) misunderstands and/or mischaracterizes Defendants' Motion to Strike. As Plaintiff notes, he was granted an extension (Doc. 51) to file a response to the Defendants' summary judgment motion. Plaintiff's original response (Doc. 55) was timely filed within that extended deadline; therefore, that response will be considered by the Court in ruling on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 39). However, as requested by Defendants, the Court will strike Plaintiff's untimely and unauthorized further briefing regarding summary judgment (Doc. 64).
Wherefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Strike (Doc. 66) is granted. Plaintiff's Brief in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Summary Judgment (Doc. 64) is stricken as filed in violation of D.N.M.LR 7.4(a) and (b).
________________________
UNITED STATES CHIEF MAGISTRATE JUDGE