Baker v. State of Colorado, The et al
ORDER Setting Scheduling Conference for 1/24/2012 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom C204 before Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 11/8/11. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1, # 2 Attachment 2, # 3 Attachment 3, # 4 Attachment 4) (mnfsl, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 11-cv-02578-PAB-KLM
BRANDON BAKER, Rev.,
THE STATE OF COLORADO, and
JOHN SUTHERS, Attorney General,
AND ADVISEMENT TO PRO SE PLAINTIFFS
(as amended effective September 1, 2011)
The above captioned case has been referred to Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix pursuant
to the Order of Reference entered by District Judge Philip A. Brimmer on November 7, 2011. The
plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, shall take particular notice to these instructions as any
failure to comply may result in the imposition of sanctions and/or dismissal of his case.
A. Date of Scheduling Conference
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a Scheduling/Planning Conference pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
16(b) shall be held on January 24, 2012, commencing at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom C-204, Second
Floor, Byron G. Rogers United States Courthouse, 1929 Stout Street, Denver, Colorado.
B. How to Request Different Date for Scheduling Conference
If this date is not convenient for any counsel or pro se party, he or she shall file a motion to
reschedule the conference to a more convenient date, and shall list dates in the motion which are
available for all counsel and pro se parties. Absent exceptional circumstances, no request for
rescheduling any appearance in this court will be considered unless a motion is made FIVE (5)
business days in advance of the date of appearance.
C. How to Request Appearance By Telephone at Scheduling Conference
If you wish to appear at the Scheduling Conference by telephone, you must file a motion
seeking permission to appear by telephone and setting forth good cause for a telephonic
appearance. No motion for any telephonic appearance will be granted unless it is filed at least
FIVE (5) business days in advance of the date of appearance.
D. Plaintiff’s Duty to Notify Parties of Scheduling Conference
Despite the fact that the plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he shall notify all parties who have
not entered an appearance as of the date of this Order of the date and time of the
Scheduling/Planning Conference set forth above.
E. Parties’ Obligations Before Scheduling Conference
1. Scheduling Order
IT IS ORDERED that counsel and pro se parties in this case are to hold a prescheduling conference meeting at least twenty-one (21) days before the scheduling conference
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(1). Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 16.1, the plaintiff is responsible
for preparing a proposed Scheduling Order in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f), as amended.
The instructions for completing the Scheduling Order may be found on the Court’s website
(www.cod.uscourts.gov) with the scheduling order forms. Please be aware that effective
December 1, 2009, there are TWO forms of Scheduling Order available on the Court’s
website under the “Local Rules” tab: one form for non-administrative review cases and one
form for cases seeking review on an administrative record. PLEASE USE THE CURRENT
and CORRECT FORM FOR YOUR CASE. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d), as amended, no
discovery is to be exchanged until after the Rule 26(f) conference meeting. The parties shall
include the following language in paragraph 8(d) of their proposed Scheduling Order in nonadministrative review cases:
“Other Planning or Discovery Orders: No opposed discovery motions are to be filed with
the Court until the parties comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR. 7.1(A). If the parties are unable
to reach agreement on a discovery issue after conferring, they shall arrange a telephone
hearing with Magistrate Judge Mix regarding the issue. Both of these steps must be
completed before any contested discovery motions are filed with the Court;”
No later than five (5) calendar days prior to the Scheduling/Planning Conference, counsel
and pro se parties shall submit their proposed Scheduling Order in compliance with the Court’s
Electronic Case Filing Procedures which are also available on the Court’s website. An additional
copy of the proposed scheduling order is to be provided to my chambers at
Mix_Chambers@cod.uscourts.gov by e-mail attachment with the subject line stating “proposed
Parties who are pro se or do not have access to the internet may obtain the scheduling
order form and instructions from the Clerk’s Office, Room A105, in the Alfred A. Arraj United States
Courthouse, 901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado, 80294. Scheduling Orders prepared by parties not
represented by counsel, or without access to electronic case filing, are to be submitted to the Clerk
of the Court on paper.
2. Mandatory Disclosures
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before 14 days after the Rule 26(f) pre-scheduling
conference meeting, the parties shall comply with the mandatory disclosure requirements of
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1), as amended.
All out-of-state counsel shall comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 83.3 before the
It is the responsibility of all counsel and pro se parties to notify the Court of his or her entry
of appearance, withdrawal of appearance, substitution of counsel, or change of address, e-mail
address, or telephone number by complying with the Court’s Electronic Case Filing Procedures or
paper-filing the appropriate document with the Court.
The Parties are further advised that they shall not assume that the Court will grant the relief
requested in any motion. Failure to appear at a court-ordered conference or to comply with
a court-ordered deadline which has not been vacated by court order, including deadline to
prepare and submit a proposed scheduling order, may result in the imposition of sanctions
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f), including the payment of the opposing parties’ expenses in
attending the scheduling conference, and/or dismissal of the case.
Anyone seeking entry to the Byron G. Rogers United States Courthouse will be required to
show valid photo identification. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 83.2B. Failure to comply with this
requirement will result in denial of entry to the courthouse.
DATED: November 8, 2011 at Denver, Colorado.