Walker v. Donayre

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 24-cv-03201-GPG-CYC
ARTHUR WALKER,
Plaintiff,
v.
ZCHECIRE DONAYRE,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
Entered by Cyrus Y. Chung, United States Magistrate Judge, on January 7, 2026.
This matter is before the Court on the document titled “Plaintiff [sic] Motion to Deny
Defendant Motion for Summary Judgment with Overwhelming Evidence, Under the 1 st
Amendment.” ECF No. 55. The Clerk of the Court docketed ECF No. 55 as a motion filed by the
plaintiff. However, it appears to be the plaintiff’s response, ECF No. 55 at 1–2, to the
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment that attaches exhibits. Id. at 3–16. For example,
ECF No. 55 includes a section titled “undisputed material facts,” id. at 2, which appears to be
responsive to the defendant’s statement of undisputed material facts included in the motion for
summary judgment. ECF No. 51 at 2–3. In addition, the document concludes by asking the Court
to deny the motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 55 at 2.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall correct the docket
to reflect that ECF No. 55 at 1–2 is the plaintiff’s response to ECF No. 51 and the remainder of
the pages of ECF No. 55 are exhibits attached to the response.
There is another matter to address. The plaintiff’s response does not comply with Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 56 or Judge Gallagher’s Practice Standards. When responding to a Rule
56 motion, the responding party must respond to each numbered undisputed material fact offered
by the moving party by identifying that numbered fact and offering a response with citation to
evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); GPG Civ. Practice Standard 7.1D(b)(4) (“Any party opposing
the motion for summary judgment shall, in a section of the brief styled ‘Response to Statement
of Undisputed Material Facts,’ admit or deny the movant’s asserted material facts. The
admission or denial shall be made in separate correspondingly numbered paragraphs. Any denial
shall be accompanied by a brief factual explanation of the reason(s) for the denial and a specific
reference to material in the record supporting the denial.”). The plaintiff’s response offers a
lengthy paragraph that incorporates legal argument and attacks on the proffered undisputed
material facts without clearly responding to each fact. ECF No. 55 at 2. That will not do.
Case No. 1:24-cv-03201-GPG-CYC Document 57 filed 01/07/26 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 2

2
The plaintiff proceeds pro se, but that does not excuse him from complying with the rules
and Practice Standards that govern proceedings in this Court. Nielsen v. Price, 17 F.3d 1276,
1277 (10th Cir. 1994) (“This court has repeatedly insisted that pro se parties follow the same
rules of procedure that govern other litigants.” (quotation marks omitted)). While the Court
liberally construes the plaintiff’s pleadings and holds him “to a less stringent standard than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991),
“the court cannot take on the responsibility of serving as the litigant’s attorney in constructing
arguments and searching the record.” Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836,
840 (10th Cir. 2005). This includes motions filed under Rule 56. Barnes v. Omnicell, No. 23-
1336, 2024 WL 2744761, at *3 (10th Cir. May 28, 2024) (unpublished) (“[W]hen a ‘party fails
to cite to the particular parts of the record that support a particular argument, the district court is
under no obligation to parse through the record to find the uncited materials.’”) quoting Doe v.
Univ. of Denver, 952 F.3d 1182, 1191 (10th Cir. 2020))). When “a party . . . fails to properly
address another party’s assertion of fact as required by Rule 56(c),” Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 56(e)(1) allows the Court to give that party “an opportunity to properly . . . address the
fact.” The Court will do so here.
Accordingly, it is further ORDERED that, on or before January 28, 2026, the plaintiff
may file an amended response that complies with all applicable rules and Practice Standards. If
the plaintiff chooses not to file an amended response, the Court may “consider the [defendant’s]
fact[s] undisputed for purposes of” deciding the motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2).
It is further ORDERED that the defendant’s deadline to file a reply in further support of
the motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 51, is extended as follows: (1) if the plaintiff files
an amended response, the defendant shall file a reply in compliance with D.C.COLO.LCivR
7.1(d), or (2) if the plaintiff does not file an amended response, the defendant shall file a reply on
or before February 13, 2026.
Case No. 1:24-cv-03201-GPG-CYC Document 57 filed 01/07/26 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 2