United States District Court, D. Colorado
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
Y. WANG, Magistrate Judge.
matter is before the court on Plaintiff Nadine
Espinoza-Horiuchi's ("Plaintiff" or Ms.
Espinoza-Horiuchi") Motion for Summary Judgment (the
"Motion for Summary Judgment"). [#17, filed Mar. 3,
2016]. The undersigned Magistrate Judge considers the Motion
for Summary Judgment pursuant to the Order of Reference dated
February 9, 2016 [#11] and the Memorandum dated March 4, 2016
[#18]. For the foregoing reasons, this court respectfully
RECOMMENDS that the Motion for Summary Judgment be DENIED.
filed this case pro se on January 28, 2016. [#1].
She asserts claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, 42 U.S.C. Â§ 2000e-5, against Defendant Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc. for allegedly wrongfully and discriminatorily
terminating her from her job with the company. See
[#1]. Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint on March 3,
2016. [#16]. A Scheduling Conference is set for March 16,
2016 at 2:30 PM in Courtroom C-204 before the undersigned
Magistrate Judge. [#12].
Espinoza-Horiuchi filed the present Motion for Summary
Judgment on March 3, 2016. [#17]. Ms. Espinoza-Horiuchi does
not present any legal arguments or evidence in the Motion for
Summary Judgment. The entire text of the Motion for Summary
Judgment reads as follows:
I, Nadine Espinoza-Horiuchi,
Civil Action Case No.: 16-CV-0219-REB-NYW
Write up this motion of summary on March 3, 2016, for the
judge to make a decision by March 9, 2016, given ALL the
facts. So that the "Final Decision" on this case
will be made on or before March 16, 2016, at 2:30PM.
court first notes that Ms. Espinoza-Horiuchi is proceeding
pro se in this case. "A pro se
litigant's pleadings are to be construed liberally and
held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers." Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d
1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972)). "The
Haines rule applies to all proceedings involving a
pro se litigant, including... summary judgment
proceedings." Id. at n.3 (citations omitted).
However, the court cannot be a pro se litigant's
advocate. Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1
(10th Cir. 2008).
Espinoza-Horiuchi states in the Motion for Summary Judgment
that she requests "the judge to make a decision by March
9, 2016, given ALL the facts." [#17]. However, Ms.
Espinoza-Horiuchi does not present any arguments or evidence
in her Motion for Summary Judgment regarding why summary
judgment in her favor would be appropriate in this matter.
Accordingly, this court recommends denying the Motion for
Summary Judgment because summary judgment is appropriate only
if "the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as
to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Celotex
Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986);
Henderson v. Inter-Chem Coal Co., Inc., 41 F.3d 567,
569 (10th Cir. 1994); see also D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(i)
("A verbose, redundant, ungrammatical, or unintelligible
motion, response, or reply may be stricken or returned for
court also notes that Ms. Espinoza-Horiuchi did not sign the
Motion for Summary Judgment, as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 11,
which mandates that "[e]very pleading, written motion,
and other paper must be signed by at least one attorney of
record in the attorney's name - or by a party personally
if the party is unrepresented. The paper must state the
signer's address, e-mail address, and telephone
number." The signature of the filer also indicates that
the positions taken by a party is done so in good faith, and
is supported by law and fact. Fed.R.Civ.P. 11. While this
court will overlook technical or grammatical errors in
Plaintiff's filings, Plaintiff must still comply with the
applicable Rules, including the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, Local Practice Rules of the District, and the
Practice Standards of the presiding judge, the Honorable
Robert E. Blackburn. SeeNielsen v. Price,17 ...