United States District Court, D. Colorado
E. Blackburn United States District Judge
matter before me is plaintiff's Motion To Set Matter for
Trial [#33],  filed August 31, 2016. I strike the
weeks after filing this case, plaintiff filed her purported
Motion for Summary Judgment ([#17], filed March 3, 2016),
which was referred to the magistrate judge for recommendation
[#18]. In adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation
to deny that motion - which consisted of a single,
conclusory, sentence - I specifically cautioned plaintiff
that “motions” of this nature were procedurally
improper and substantively ineffectual:
Plaintiff's one-sentence, conclusory “motion”
violates not only the rules cited by the magistrate judge in
the recommendation, but also the requirement of the local
civil rules that “a motion involving a contested issue
of law”must “be supported by a recitation of
legal authority in the motion.”
Adopting Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge
at 1-2 [#30], filed March 31, 2016.) Moreover, I specifically
admonished plaintiff to familiarize herself with all rules of
practice and procedure applicable to this federal lawsuit and
advised that “[f]urther non-complying motions or other
submissions may be stricken.” (Id. at
heedless of this warning, plaintiff's current submission
likewise consists of but a single sentence:
I, Nadine Espinoza-Horiuchi, file this appeal on, August 31,
2016, the decision made on court Case No.:
16-CV-00219-REB.NYW against Walmart and request that a court
date be set before the judge and jury on or before, September
16, 2016, ready for trial.
with the court's previous warning, this unilluminating,
unsubstantiated “motion” will be stricken.
the court were to consider the motion on its merits (such as
they are), it would not grant plaintiff the near-immediate
jury trial she requests. This case is little more than eight
months old. Discovery ended barely a month ago. Defendant
filed a motion for summary judgment only three days prior to
plaintiffs motion, and the court assumes plaintiff will wish
to file a response to that motion. The matter thus is not ripe
to be set for trial at this time. If any of plaintiffs claims
survive summary judgment, the case may be set for trial in
due course thereafter.
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs Motion To Set Matter for Trial
[#33], filed August 31, 2016, is stricken.
 “[#33]” is an example of
the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned
to a specific paper by the court's case management and
electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this convention
throughout this order.
 Because plaintiff is proceeding
pro se, the court construes her filings more
liberally and holds them to a less stringent standard than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200, 167
L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007); Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d
1070, 1076 (10th Cir. 2007); Hall v.
Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991)
(citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92
S.Ct. 594, 595-96, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972)). That latitude,
however, does not require the court to divine the factual
basis for a pro se ...