Conkleton v. Zavaras et al

Filing 88

MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 85 Plaintiff's Motion to Deem First Set of Request for Admission Admitted for Lack of Response, by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 9/22/2009. (mehcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 08-cv-02612-WYD-MEH JAMES K. CONKLETON, Plaintiff, v. ARISTEDES W. ZAVARAS, in his official capacity as Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC), JOE STOMMEL, in his official capacity as the Program Administrator of the Sex Offender Treatment and Monitoring Program (SOTMP) for the CDOC, JOHN P. MCGILL, in his individual and official capacities as Treatment Provider for the SOTMP, BONNIE CANTU, in her individual and official capacities as Treatment Provider for the SOTMP, JAMES LANDER, in his individual and official capacities as Treatment Provider for the SOTMP, ED MURO, in his individual and official capacities as a Correctional Officer I for the CDOC, RICHARD DEGROOT, in his individual and official capacities as a Case Manager for the CDOC, CATHIE HOLST, in her official capacity as Manager for the Office of Correctional Legal Services for the CDOC, THOMAS MISEL, in his individual and official capacities as Case Manager Supervisor, CDOC, AL ESTEP, in his official capacity as the Warden of the CDOC's Fremont Correctional Facility, and RICHARD LIND, in his individual and official capacities as a Correctional Officer V, Defendants. MINUTE ORDER Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on September 22, 2009. Plaintiff's Motion to Deem First Set of Request for Admission Admitted for Lack of Response [filed September 21, 2009; docket #85] is denied without prejudice. According to the Plaintiff, he mailed his request for admissions to Defendant DeGroot on July 30, 2009; however, he demonstrates no showing of service or mailing of the requests to Mr. DeGroot1 (i.e., the document contains no certificate of service or certificate of mailing). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a)(1)(C) and 5(d)(1). The Plaintiff may re-file his motion with the appropriate showing.

This is unlike Plaintiff's requests for admissions addressed to Defendant Misel, which contains a Certificate of Mailing. See docket #84 at 5.
1