Dunlap v. Colorado, People of the State of et al

Filing 31

MINUTE ORDER denying 29 Pro Se Plaintiff's Motion for Contempt to Deprive Rights and Speech or be Subjected to Assault and Jail Rule 8 as this court lacks jurisdiction over the subject motion, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 03/18/09.(wjc, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 05-cv-00715-MSK-MJW WILLIAM W. DUNLAP, Plaintiff, v. KRISTEN BUCKLEY, et al., Defendant. MINUTE ORDER Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe It is hereby ORDERED that the Pro Se Plaintiff William W. Dunlap's Motion for Contempt to Deprive Rights and Speech or be Subjected to Assault and Jail Rule 8 (docket no. 29) is DENIED for the following reasons. In the subject motion (docket no. 29), it appears that the Pro Se Plaintiff Dunlap seeks injunctive relief to "STOP violence from two judges Robert Briddle and Joseph Dircherl, Judy Myers, A. Clendaniel, 2232. Making threats to jail Mr. Dunlap, and intimidation, and retaliation, abduction, unlawful restraint/illegal detention, and false statements made by the District Attorney in Division 5 and destruction of motions and paperwork." The Pro Se Plaintiff Dunlap also requests that this court: "Please move all 5 cases to this federal court 01CR1616, BBB Case 75068033, Citation 009601173, 09M02147, and 09M02292." Lastly, the Pro Se Plaintiff requests that this court "Mr. Dunlap requests an order for a protective order so he does not die by the hands of the Colorado Springs Police Department and others." See subject motion (docket no. 29) for requested relief stated above. The Pro Se Plaintiff Dunlap filed with this court his Motion to Dismiss His Claims Without Prejudice (docket no. 25) on September 27, 2005. Judge Krieger granted the Pro Se Plaintiff Dunlap's Motion to Dismiss (docket no. 25) and Directing the Clerk of Court to Close this case on September 27, 2005. See docket no. 26. This case was terminated and closed on September 27, 2005. This court lacks jurisdiction over the subject motion (docket no. 29) and therefore such motion should be denied. Date: March 18, 2009