Wideman v. Colorado, State of et al

Filing 47

ORDER denying 45 Motion to Stay pending appeal by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 03/26/10. Because the Court's Orders and Judgment do not impose a money judgment against Plaintiff, the Court finds the Motion to Stay (Doc. #45) unnecessary.(bjrsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 09-cv-00095-CMA-KMT EUGENE WIDEMAN, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF COLORADO, ROSLIN VIGNA, and DOUGLAS GLOVER, Defendants. MINUTE ORDER ORDER ENTERED BY JUDGE CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Stay (Doc. # 45). Plaintiff seeks a stay of the instant action in light of his pending appeal of the Court's Order granting Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment and Denying Plaintiff's Motions for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. # 37), the corresponding Judgment (Doc. # 38), and the Court's Order denying Plaintiff's Rule 52(b) Motion to Amend/Correct/Modify and Plaintiff's Motion for a Hearing/Conference (Doc. # 41). Plaintiff filed the instant Motion under Fed. R. App. P. 8(a)(2)(A)(i). However, this rule concerns the filing of motions to stay in appellate court, and states in pertinent part, "[t]he motion must: show that moving first in the district court [for relief under Fed. R. App. P. 8(a)(1)] would be impracticable." Simply put, the instant motion should have been filed under Rule 8(a)(1), since Plaintiff must first seek relief from the district court. However, because Plaintiff is pro se, the Court will liberally construe the instant motion as one filed under Rule 8(a)(1). Because the Court's Orders and the Judgment do not impose a money judgment against Plaintiff, the Court finds a stay unnecessary. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Stay (Doc. # 45) is DENIED. DATED: March 26, 2010