Montez, et al v. Romer, et al

Filing 4202

ORDER OF SPECIAL MASTER re: Claimant Roy Jack Pollard (Claim No. 03-272). Claimants 4184 Contempt of Court and Obstruction of Justice (motion) is denied, by Special Master Richard M. Borchers on 11/21/2009. (wjc, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 92-CV-870-JLK JESSE MONTEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, -vs.BILL RITTER, et al., Defendants. Claim Number: 03-272 Category III Claimant: Roy Jack Pollard, #94894 Address of Claimant: CTCF, P.O. Box 1010, Canon City, CO 81215-1010 ORDER OF SPECIAL MASTER THIS MATTER comes before the Special Master on Claimant's pleading entitled "Contempt of Court and Obstruction of Justice." #4184. In that pleading, Claimant argues that he was denied the opportunity to assist another inmate, Lawrence Handy, at a hearing. He argues further that a DOC lieutenant should be held in contempt of court for preventing Claimant from assisting Mr. Handy. Claimant had no vested right to provide assistance to Mr. Handy. If anyone has legal standing to raise the issue, it is Mr. Handy, not Claimant. More importantly, Mr. Handy was able to represent himself adequately at the hearing. The order issued by the Special Master has been appealed to Judge Kane by Mr. Handy. If Judge Kane believes that Mr. Handy was denied assistance, he may remand the case back to the Special Master for a further hearing. Clearing away all of the hyperbole concerning lack of assistance, the real issue is fairly simple. Mr. Handy retained an attorney to represent him on his claim. Mr. Handy was one of fewer than twenty-five claimants who were represented by private counsel. With the assistance of his attorney, Mr. Handy settled his claim. No hearing was held on the underlying claim, as the settlement resolved all issues. There was no evidence at the hearing on Mr. Handy's motion to set aside the claim that he was coerced or threatened into settling his claim. Mr. Handy presented no basis for setting aside the settlement. If Mr. Handy has any complaint, it may be with his attorney. That is not part of this case and will have to be resolved in a different action.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Claimant's motion is denied. SIGNED this 21st day of November, 2009. BY THE COURT: /s/ Richard M. Borchers ___________________________________ Richard M. Borchers Special Master

2