Huffman v. Bureau of Prisons et al

Filing 103

MINUTE ORDER striking in part and denying as moot in part 96 Plaintiff's second Motion to Find Defendant in Contempt of Court. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 11/14/11.(mnfsl, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 11-cv-01459-CMA-KLM LORAL HUFFMAN, Plaintiff, v. DR. ALLRED, DR. CARTER, SANCHEZ, Case Manager, DERR, Unit Manager, JOHN DOE, Mailroom Supervisor, JANE DOE, Food Supervisor, BUCKNER, Investigator, LINCOLN, D.H.D., and CRANK, Trust Manager, Defendants. _____________________________________________________________________ MINUTE ORDER _____________________________________________________________________ ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s second “Motion to Find Defendant in Contempt of Court” [Docket No. 96; Filed November 9, 2011] (the “Motion”). IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is STRICKEN IN PART and DENIED AS MOOT IN PART. The portions of the Motion seeking the same relief as that stated in Plaintiff’s first motion to find Defendants in contempt of court [#80], which is pending before the Court, are STRICKEN pursuant to the Minute Order issued November 4, 2011 [#85]. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the portions of the Motion seeking counsel and a hearing date are DENIED AS MOOT. The Court sua sponte placed this lawsuit on the list of cases available for volunteer counsel on November 10, 2011 [#91]. Further, the Court will determine whether to hold a second hearing regarding the relief requested once it has reviewed Defendants’ response, due November 21, 2011 [#85].1 Dated: November 14, 2011 1 Magistrate Judge Boland held a hearing on June 29, 2011 regarding a previously filed motion by Plaintiff asserting the same requested relief. See Docket Nos. 27, 45 (order denying Plaintiff’s request).

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?