Montez, et al v. Romer, et al
ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF SPECIAL MASTER re: Claimant Fermen Arguello (Claim No. X-359). Claimants damage claim under Article XXXII of the Remedial Plan is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, as Claimant came into DOC custody after 08/27/2003. Claimant s request for individual relief is held in abeyance pending resolution of the jurisdictional issue before the assigned District Judge. Claimant and Defendants may file an objection on or before 08/10/2009, by Special Master Richard M. Borchers on 06/12/09. (wjc, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 92-CV-870-CMA JESSE MONTEZ, et al. Plaintiffs, -vs.BILL OWENS, et al. Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________ Claim Number X-359 Category: Untimely Filed Claim Claimant: Fermen Arguello, #133019 Address of Claimant: FCF, P.O. Box 999, Canon City, CO 81215-0999 ______________________________________________________________________________ ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF SPECIAL MASTER ______________________________________________________________________________ THIS MATTER came before the Special Master on the claim form of Fermen Arguello. In his claim form, Claimant stated that he is mobility impaired. Claimant also stated that he came into DOC custody in September 2006. Since it appeared that there might be no jurisdiction over this damage claim, a show cause order was issued to Claimant. Despite being granted up to and including June 8, 2009 in which to respond to the show cause order, Claimant has filed nothing further in support of his claim. Article XXXII of the Remedial Plan provides for a claim process for individuals who were in DOC custody on or before August 27, 2003 and were the victims of discrimination prohibited by the ADA and Rehabilitation Act on or before that date. Claimant was not in DOC custody on or before August 27, 2003. There is no jurisdiction over this damage claim, and it will be dismissed. Claimant appears to be seeking help concerning an issue that has arisen since his arrival in DOC custody. At the time of the issuance of this order, the controlling case law would require that this letter be forwarded to class counsel for action. McNeil v. Guthrie, 945 F.2d 1163 (10th Cir. 1991). Counsel for the class has argued that the Remedial Plan and the two subsequent stipulations allow claimants to seek individual relief, as Claimant is attempting to do with his initial letter. The jurisdictional issue has not been resolved, and no action can be taken on anything that has recently occurred. Claimant's pleadings will be held in abeyance until the jurisdictional issue is resolved.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Claimant's damage claim under Article XXXII of the Remedial Plan is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, as Claimant came into DOC custody after August 27, 2003; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Claimant's request for individual relief is held in abeyance pending resolution of the jurisdictional issue before the assigned District Judge; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Claimant and Defendants are advised that they may file an objection to this Order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53(g)(2), but said objection must be filed with the Clerk of the United States District Court, 901 19th Street, Denver, CO 80294 on or before August 10, 2009. SIGNED this 12th day of June, 2009. BY THE COURT: /s/ Richard M. Borchers ________________________________________ Richard M. Borchers Special Master
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?