Rev Matt Hale (Civil Case) Motion for leave to file possibly oversized reply in support of Plaintiff's objections to the Magistrate's

In the United States district court for the district of Colorado

Civil action no 19-cv-00752-WJM-SKC

Matthew Hale, J.D,
Plaintiff,

V

Rudy Marques, et, al,
Defendants.

Motion for leave to file possibly oversized reply in support of Plaintiff's objections to the Magistrate's
recommendations instanter.

Now comes Plaintiff' Matthew Hale, J, D, stating as follows,

1. The Defendant's filed their response to Hale's  objection to the Magistrate's recommendations on March 5th 2020 (Doc 95)

2. In preparing his response to that response , Hale was unable to a page limitation for such replies within the practice standards for Judge Martinez which is currently in his possession (Revised and effective 1 December 2018) 3.c1 indicates a page limitation of 15 pages for objections and responses but nothing is indicated for replies.

3. Out of an abundance of caution, Hale is therefore filling this motion since his reply runs at 12 pages. That said, he knows from prior experience that a 12 page hand written brief is the equivalent of no more than 5 typed pages since he is able to get far fewer words on page by hand. Therefore the actual volume of his reply is actually comfortably within any page limitation which might exist.

Therefore, Hale moves for leave to file his possibly oversized reply to the Defendant's response (Doc 95) Instanter.


Respectfully Submitted,

Matthew Hale, J.D,
Plaintiff Pro SE

FREE MATT HALE (Wordpress)

Matt’s Objections to the Magistrate’s Recommendation that Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter of Amend Judgement be Denied and that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss be Granted (Doc 91) – February 19, 2020