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, )

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