Schupper v. Cafasso et al

Filing 103

ORDER: denying 100 Plaintiffs Motion to Proceed on Claim of Unconstitutionality (With Amended Prayer for Relief) Pursuant to FedCivP 5.1, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 1/17/12.(bnbcd, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland
Civil Action No. 10-cv-01853-WYD-BNB
SANFORD B. SCHUPPER,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROBYN CAFASSO, in his individual and official capacity,
WILLIAM EDIE, in his individual and official capacity,
JEANIE SMITH, in her individual and official capacity,
DAVID ZOOK, in his individual and official capacity,
JOHN NEWSOME, in his individual and official capacity,
DAN MAY, in his individual and official capacity,
LINDA DIX, in her individual and official capacity,
RAYMOND SANTISTEVAN, in his individual and official capacity,
RONALD WILKINS, in his individual and official capacity,
ANDREA WALTON, in her individual and official capacity,
DEBBI PARR, in her individual and official capacity,
JOHN RUSZCZYK in his individual and official capacity, and
JOHN DOE, JANE DOES, DOES 1-X,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter arises on Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed on Claim of Unconstitutionality
(With Amended Prayer for Relief) Pursuant to FedCivP 5.1 [Doc. #100, filed 12/23/2011]
(the “Motion to Proceed”). The Motion is DENIED.
The plaintiff requests that he be permitted to proceed in this action with his constitutional
challenge to section 18-1.3-204(4), C.R.S. He summarily claims that this issue “was improperly
declared moot by U.S. Federal District Court Judge Wiley Daniel.” Motion, ¶ 12.

This case was administratively closed pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2, pending a
showing of good cause to reopen by the plaintiff after his state proceedings are final [Doc. #71].
The plaintiff has not made such a showing.
In addition, the plaintiff complains that he “has repeatedly advised this Court that he was
not timely served with a copy” of the recommendation and subsequent order which
administratively closed the case and therefore “could not timely respond and object.” Motion, ¶
9. However, the recommendation was timely served on the plaintiff at his email address of
record on February 7, 2011, and the order was timely served on him at his email address of
record on March 2, 2011. The court did not receive a notice of change of address from the
plaintiff as required by D.C.COLO.LCivR 10.1M until March 8, 2011. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED.
Dated January 17, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge

2