Escobar v. Huertas et al

Filing 61

MINUTE ORDER denying 59 Motion to Compel, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 1/3/2012.(jjpsl, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 11-cv-00169-CMA-KLM JOSE MEDINA ESCOBAR, Plaintiff, v. CAPTAIN H. HUERTAS, LIEUTENANT TITEMAN, SERGEANT FRETWELL, SERGEANT WEST, C/O P. ARCHULETA, C/O SUTER, C/O J. ENGLEHART, and C/O D. JOHNSON, Defendants. _____________________________________________________________________ MINUTE ORDER _____________________________________________________________________ ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel [Docket No. 59; Filed December 30, 2011] (the “Motion”). IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED. Construing the Motion liberally as it must, the Court interprets Plaintiff’s stated request for relief as seeking an order compelling the Colorado Attorney General’s office “to furnish [Plaintiff] with grievance forms and withdrawl-slips [sic], etc.” [#49] at 4. Neither the Colorado Attorney General nor his office are parties to this proceeding. As previously explained, the Court has limited authority to grant relief against nonparties, and the circumstances permitting such relief are not present here. [#41] at 4; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d) (“Every order granting an injunction ... binds only ... the parties ... .”); see also Little v. Jones, 607 F.3d 1245, 1251 (10th Cir. 2010) (affirming the denial of a motion for preliminary injunction on the basis that the incarcerated pro se plaintiff had not “alleged that the defendants named in the complaint participated in the alleged deprivations . . . .”). Dated: January 3, 2012

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?