Parker v. Ritter et al
Filing
479
MINUTE ORDER granting 475 Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel or Advisory Counsel Motion to Appoint Counsel. The Clerk of the Court maintains a list of pro se cases for which the Court is seeking volunteer counsel. 476 Plaintiff& #039;s Motion for Exhibits and Documents, Evidence is DENIED in part and DENIED without prejudice in part. To the extent that the Motion could be interpreted as a motion to compel Defendants to produce discovery, the Motion is denied. To the extent that the Motion could be interpreted as a request to obtain copies of Defendants' trial exhibits or a motion to reconsider the District Judge's ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment, the Motion is denied without prejudice, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 06/24/2011.(wjc, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 08-cv-00737-MSK-KLM
KEITH PARKER,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAPTAIN HALL,
DONNA WEBSTER,
M. MCCORMICK,
LT. PIPER, and
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel
or Advisory Counsel [Docket No. 475; Filed June 23, 2011] (“Motion No. 475”). Although
Plaintiff had, at one time, been placed on the list of individuals in need of pro bono counsel,
Plaintiff terminated the services of the counsel provided to him [Docket No. 199]. Following
that termination, the Court informed Plaintiff that due to his conduct, which is detailed in
Docket Nos. 199 & 213, no additional counsel would be secured for Plaintiff. Plaintiff
sought reconsideration of my decision, but reconsideration was denied [Docket No. 213].
Although Plaintiff offers no compelling justification that would prompt the Court to revisit my
prior rulings, I note that some of Plaintiff’s claims have survived summary judgment and this
case is now proceeding to trial [Docket No. 471]. As such, the Court finds that placing
Plaintiff on the list of parties needing volunteer counsel serves the Court’s and the public’s
interest in the efficient administration of justice. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Motion No. 475 is GRANTED. The Clerk of the
Court maintains a list of pro se cases for which the Court is seeking volunteer counsel.
Plaintiff is hereby notified that mere placement on this list does not automatically mean that
he will receive counsel. Rather, placement on the list results in representation being
secured for Plaintiff only if counsel volunteers to represent him. Because of the number
of cases on the list and the shortage of volunteer attorneys, placement on the list frequently
does not result in counsel being obtained. In such circumstances, despite placement of a
case on the list, a pro se litigant remains responsible for litigating his case himself.
This matter is also before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Exhibits and
Documents, Evidence [Docket No. 476; Filed June 23, 2011] (“Motion No. 476”).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Motion No. 476 is DENIED in part and DENIED
without prejudice in part.
To the extent that the Motion could be interpreted as a motion to compel Defendants
to produce discovery, the Motion is denied. The time for discovery closed nearly a year
and a half ago on January 15, 2010. Moreover, among other deficiencies, the Motion does
not contain a verbatim recitation of the discovery requests at issue or attach a copy of
timely propounded discovery requests as required by D.C.COLO.LCivR 37.1.
To the extent that the Motion could be interpreted as a request to obtain copies of
Defendants’ trial exhibits or a motion to reconsider the District Judge’s ruling on the Motion
for Summary Judgment, the Motion is denied without prejudice. First, issues related to trial
exhibits will be addressed by the District Judge during the Final Pretrial Conference set for
2
July 7, 2011 at 4:00 p.m. Plaintiff may raise trial or evidentiary issues with her at that time.
Second, this Court cannot address or revisit conclusions reached by the District Judge in
her prior Order [Docket No. 471].
Dated: June 24, 2011
3
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?