Lopez
v.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

This case is not covered by Casetext's citator
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADOJun 28, 2012
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01492-RBJ-KMT (D. Colo. Jun. 28, 2012)

Civil Action No. 12-cv-01492-RBJ-KMT

06-28-2012

EMELDA MARIE LOPEZ, and RAYMOND N. LOPEZ, Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., ARONOWITZ & MECKLENBERG, LLP, SUSAN J. HENDRICK, ORTIZ AND ASSOCIATES, INC., and All Persons Claiming Any Legal Or Equitable Right, Title, Estate, Lien, Or Interest In The Property Described In The Complaint Adverse To Plaintiffs' Title, Or Any Cloud On Plaintiffs' Title Thereto, and DOES 1-100, Defendants.


Honorable R. Brooke Jackson


MINUTE ORDER REGARDING DOCKET #10

Entered by Judge R. Brooke Jackson

The motion [docket #10] to exceed the page limit set by Judge Arguello's practice standards is denied. Her limit is reasonable for a motion to dismiss. However, upon review of the complaint, the Court finds that it does not comply with Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court is aware of the difficulties faced by pro se litigants in framing pleadings, and while the Court entirely respects the right of every citizen to represent himself or herself, these plaintiffs might wish to consider retaining counsel or, if they cannot afford counsel, contacting Legal Aid or Ed Butler in the Clerk's Office to see if they might qualify for a pro bono lawyer. In any event, even with pro se litigants, the Court must require that there be reasonable compliance with the procedural rules, in fairness to the opposing party and to the Court. Rule 8(a)(2) requires a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." This complaint does not meet that standard, even liberally construed. Therefore, the Court sua sponte strikes the complaint [docket #1 on the electronic filing system], with leave to file an amended complaint that does comply with the rule.