Chytka v. Wright Tree Service, Inc.

Filing 308

MINUTE ORDER denying 306 Motion to Master Judge Kireger the Court Magistrate Mix Has No Right to Strick Any Motions in This Case or Have the Pre Trial for This Case. The Master Judge Is the Only One That Is Allowed to Make a Decision on This Case. From When I Put in the Motion for Master Judge Kireger to Make the Decisions on This Case. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 9/19/2013.(klyon, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 11-cv-00968-REB-KLM
KATHLEEN CHYTKA,
Plaintiff,
v.
WRIGHT TREE SERVICE, INC.,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Master Judge Kireger the
Court Magistrate Mix Has No Right to Strick Any Motions in This Case or Have the
Pre Trial for This Case. The Master Judge Is the Only One That Is Allowed to Make
a Decision on This Case. From When I Put in the Motion for Master Judge Kireger to
Make the Decisions on This Case. [sic] [Docket No. 306; Filed September 18, 2013]. For
the following reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#306] is DENIED.
First, the Motion does not comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A. As Plaintiff has been
told many times before See, e.g., [#36, #42, #45, #52, #67, #73, #85, #89, #148, #151,
#170, #178, #184, #198, #202, #206, #219, #224, #233, #242], on this basis alone, the
Motion is subject to being stricken.
Second, much of the content of the Motions is redundant and unintelligible, in
violation of D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1H. The Motions are also subject to being stricken on this
basis alone.
Third, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of previous rulings by the
court, she has failed to establish any of the bases for reconsideration as outlined to her by
the District Judge on August 20, 2013. See Order [#267] at 2 (quoting Servants of the
Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000)).
Fourth, to the extent that Plaintiff asks Chief Judge Krieger to consider this case
-1-

and/or overrule decisions made in this case by the assigned District Judge and Magistrate
Judge, the District Judge has already ruled that Plaintiff has failed to establish any basis
for reassignment of this case. See Order [#267] at 3. In the present Motions, Plaintiff has
failed to provide any new reasons supporting reassignment of this matter. Plaintiff's
suggestion that recusal is appropriate because she disagrees with prior rulings manifestly
lacks merit. See, e.g., Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (“Judicial rulings
alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion . . . . [Further],
judicial remarks during the course of a trial that are critical or disapproving of, or even
hostile to, counsel, the parties, or their cases, ordinarily do not support a bias or partiality
challenge.”); Bixler v. Foster, 596 F.3d 751, 762 (10th Cir. 2010) (“Adverse rulings alone
do not demonstrate judicial bias.”). Moreover, Chief Judge Krieger does not have authority
to “overrule” decisions of Judge Blackburn. See also D.C.COLO.LCivR 40.1 (discussing
assignment of cases to judges in the District of Colorado).

Dated: September 19, 2013

-2-