Carbajal v. Warner et al
ORDER. ORDERED that plaintiff Dean Carbajal's Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing 834 is DENIED. Signed by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 12/14/16. (jhawk, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 10-cv-02862-PAB-KLM
GILBERTO LUCIO, in his individual capacity,
JAMES DIXON, in his individual capacity,
MICHAEL O’NEILL, in his individual capacity, and
JEFFREY WATTS, Investigator for the Second Judicial District, in his individual
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing
[Docket No. 834]. Because plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court construes his filings
liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d
1106, 1110 (10th Cir.1991).
Plaintiff believes that defendants have committed fraud on the Court and thereby
“deceive[d] the Court into entering summary judgment.” Docket No. 834 at 1. As a
result he asks the Court to set an evidentiary hearing to give him “a fair opportunity to
substantiate his fraud claims.” Id. at 2.
The Court finds that there is no basis for an evidentiary hearing. Plaintiff’s
allegations of fraud have been extensively discussed by the magistrate judge and
rejected. See Docket Nos. 753, 854. Nothing in the instant motion, or plaintiff’s reply,
Docket No. 851, suggests that an evidentiary hearing is warranted.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that plaintiff Dean Carbajal’s Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing
[Docket No. 834] is DENIED.
DATED December 14, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
s/Philip A. Brimmer
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge
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?