Burkhart v. Timme et al

Filing 80

MINUTE ORDER denying as premature 75 Plaintiff's Request for Admission of Documents and 76 Plaintiff's Request for Admission of Documents #2, by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 1/24/2012. (mehcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 11-cv-00341-MSK-MEH
DAVID LEE BURKHART,
Plaintiff,
v.
WARDEN RAE TIMME, in her official and personal capacities,
CASE MANAGER ARTHUR TRAINOR, in his official and personal capacities,
ASSISTANT WARDEN RON WAGER, in his official and personal capacities,
CASE MANAGER III SHELLY ORTIZ, in her official and personal capacities,
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER I MS. SEGURA, in her official and personal capacities,
Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on January 24, 2012.
Before the Court are Plaintiff’s Request for Admission of Documents [filed January 19,
2012; docket #75] and Request for Admission of Documents #2 [filed January 19, 2012; docket
#76]. Both motions are denied as premature. Evidence supporting one’s position may be submitted
at such time as a dispositive motion is pending, or at trial.
In addition, Plaintiff has not complied with Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a)(1)(D) and D.C. Colo. LCivR
5.1G. Rule 5(a)(1)(D) requires that a written motion filed with the Court must be served on every
party. Local Rule 5.1G requires, in pertinent part, that “[e]ach paper, other than one filed ex parte,
shall be accompanied by a certificate of service indicating the date it was served, the name and
address of the person to whom it was sent, and the manner of service.” Plaintiff’s first request for
admission of documents [docket #75] contains no certificate of service, while Plaintiff’s second
request [docket #76] contains a certificate of service indicating that the motion was mailed to the
Clerk of the Court. Plaintiff is obligated to provide service to all parties; simply mailing a document
to the Court does not meet this requirement.