Preacher v. Wiley

Filing 224

MINUTE ORDER denying 209 Writ of Mandamus to Compel the Court to Honor and Adhere to the Rules of 28 U.S.C. 144 and 455 filed by Plaintiff Nantambu, which is construed by the Court as a motion for recusal. By Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 8/10/2009. (mehcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 09-cv-00278-CMA-MEH LUKE PREACHER, MIKEAL GLENN STINE, GEORGE SCALF, DAMANI M. NANTAMBU, DAVID BAXTER, and ROBERT UTLEY, Plaintiffs, v. RON WILEY, Warden ADX-Florence, B. A. BLEDSOE, Warden USP Marion, J. FOX, Associate Warden ADX-Florence, MARK COLLINS, Unit Manager ADX-Florence, GEORGE KNOX, Conselor ADX-Florence, J. MANLEY, Lieutenant ADX-Florence, TINA SUDLOW, Case Manager ADX-Florence, CORR. OFFICER MANSPEAKER, ADX-Florence, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BREAM, ADX-Florence, J. D. WALTERS, Lieutenant ADX-Florence, CORR. OFFICER BARBARA BATULIS, ADX-Florence, LIEUTENANT C. RIVERS, CAPTAIN KRIST, and JOHN DOE, Unknown Person, Defendants. MINUTE ORDER Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on August 10, 2009. Pending before the Court is a Writ of Mandamus to Compel the Court to Honor and Adhere to the Rules of 28 U.S.C. 144 and 455 filed by Plaintiff Nantambu [filed August 5, 2009; docket #209], which is construed by the Court as a motion for recusal. First, one Plaintiff may not seek relief on behalf of the other Plaintiffs in this action. Second, because the motion contains essentially the same arguments as those set forth in Plaintiff's first motion for recusal [docket #83], the motion is denied for the same reasons set forth in Judge Arguello's July 29, 2009 order [docket #189].