Hafed v. Lappin

Filing 269

ORDER denying 176 Motion for Order to Correct Caption to Reflect Plaintiff's Legal Name. Denying 190 Motion for Sanctions, which is construed as a response to the motion to correct the caption, as moot. Denying as moot 194 Motion to Stri ke ; denying as moot 196 Motion for Reconsideration ; striking 197 Motion for Order; striking 199 Motion for Order; striking 200 Motion for Order; striking 202 Motion for Order; striking 208 Motion for Sanctions; granting 215 Motion to Strike ; striking 218 Motion for Order; striking 220 Motion for TRO; granting 224 Motion to Strike ; striking 226 Motion for Sanctions; granting 228 Motion to Strike, by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 3/2/09.(gmssl, ) Modified on 3/4/2009 to indicate #194 and 196 were denied as moot. (gmssl, ).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya Civil Action No. 07-cv-01499-ZLW-KMT SHAABAN SHAABAN HAFED, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, MICHAEL MUKASEY, HARLEY LAPPIN, RON WILEY, and ROD BAUER, sued in their official capacities, Defendants. ORDER This matter is before the court on a review of the file and the pending motions. It is ORDERED as follows: 1. "Defendants' Motion for an Order to Correct Caption to Reflect Plaintiff's Legal

Name" (Doc. No 176) is DENIED. Defendants request that the court change the caption to reflect Plaintiff's legal name, Shaaban Hafiz Ahmad Ali Shaaban "[i]n the interest of insuring that the pleadings filed in this case reflect true and accurate information . . . and to maintain consistency with the judicial records in Plaintiff's criminal matter in the Southern District of Indiana." (Id., ¶ 4.) Plaintiff did not specifically respond to this motion; however he denies that Shaaban Hafiz Ahmad Ali Shaaban is his legal name and states that it is the name of his identical

twin brother. (See Doc. Nos. 190, 243.) The court finds that this case is unrelated to Plaintiff's criminal action in the Southern District of Indiana and, therefore, it is unnecessary to change the caption in this case to reflect Plaintiff's alleged legal name. 2. Plaintiff's "Motion request for imposing sanctions upon Ms. Susan Prose,

defendants' attorney to her attempt to deceive and mislead the court in her knowingly filed motion for an order to correct Plaintiff's name to illegal name in contempt of other court order" (Doc. No. 190) shall be construed as a response to the motion to correct the caption (Doc. No. 176) and therefore shall be DENIED as moot. With respect to the motion for sanctions, the court does not believe the motion to change the caption was done in bad faith or in attempt to deceive the court. 3. In light of the rulings on documents 176 and 190, "Defendants' Motion to Strike

Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions" (Doc. No. 194) is DENIED as moot. 4. Plaintiff's "Motion request for reconsidering the erroneous court order issued on

Oct. 17, 2008 because it is contradictory and abuse of discretion" (Doc. No. 196) is DENIED as moot, as Senior Judge Zita L. Weinshienk overruled Plaintiff's appeal of this court's minute order dated October 17, 2008. (See Doc. No. 245.) Judge Weinshienk found the rulings made by this court were neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. 5. "Defendant's Motion to Strike 197, 199, 200, 202 and 208" (Doc. No. 215);

"Defendants' Motion to Strike Doc. 218 and 220" (Doc. No. 224); and "Defendants' Motion to Strike Doc. No. 226" (Doc. No. 228) are GRANTED. Defendants request that the court strike

2

these motions for Plaintiff's failure to comply with the District of Colorado Local Rule of Civil Practice 7.1A. This Rule provides: A. Duty to Confer. The court will not consider any motion, other than a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 or 56, unless counsel for the moving party or a pro se party, before filing the motion, has conferred or made reasonable, good-faith efforts to confer with opposing counsel or a pro se party to resolve the disputed matter. The moving party shall state in the motion, or in a certificate attached to the motion, the specific efforts to comply with this rule. Id. The court has reviewed Plaintiff's motions numbers 197, 199, 200, 202, 208, 218, 220, and 226, and finds that none of these motions contain the required statement of conferral or attempted conferral in the motion or in an attached certificate. None of the motions sets forth any effort made by the plaintiff to confer with opposing counsel before filing the motion. To the contrary, it appears Plaintiff is refusing to confer with opposing counsel. (See Doc. 215, Ex. A; Doc. 224, Ex. A; Doc. 228, Ex. A-1.) The special security provisions imposed on Plaintiff do not keep him from communicating with defendants' counsel. (See Doc. 215 at ¶ 2.) Therefore, document numbers 197, 199, 200, 202, 208, 218, 220, and 226 are STRICKEN. Plaintiff is ORDERED to confer in good faith regarding motions and other filings in this court, whether they are to be filed by the plaintiff or by the defendants. Plaintiff is reminded of the sanctions that may be imposed for failure to comply with the court's orders, as set forth in its previous order dated February 13, 2009 (Doc. No. 248).

3

Dated this 2nd day of March, 2009. BY THE COURT:

Kathleen M. Tafoya United States Magistrate Judge

4