Huffman v. Bureau of Prisons et al

Filing 108

MINUTE ORDER granting in part, denying in part, and denying without prejudice in part 104 letter from Plaintiff docketed as a motion by the Clerk's Office. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 11/15/11.(mnfsl, )

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.O., and
CRANK, Trust Manager,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on a letter from Plaintiff docketed as a motion by the
Clerk’s Office [Docket No. 104; Filed November 14, 2011] (the “Motion”).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN
PART, and DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART as set forth below.
Plaintiff asks the Court to serve copies of Plaintiff’s mail on the United States
Attorneys’ Office. First, Plaintiff’s mail is clearly being sent out of the prison, as evidenced
by Plaintiff’s prolific filings on the docket in this matter. Second, the Court is not
responsible for ensuring the service of Plaintiff’s filings on Defendants. It is Plaintiff’s
responsibility to comply with the same federal and local rules of civil procedure that govern
all litigants, including the rules governing service of filings. Nielson v. Price, 17 F.3d 1276,
1277 (10th Cir. 1994). This request is DENIED.
Plaintiff’s request to correct Defendant Lincoln’s title on the caption is GRANTED.
The case caption of this lawsuit is amended to replace Defendant Lincoln, D.H.D. with
Defendant Lincoln, D.H.O.

1

Plaintiff’s request to identify the Jane Doe Defendant (referred to as a “Food
Supervisor”) as Mrs. Hutchins is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The substitution of a
named defendant for a previously unknown defendant amounts to adding a new party.
Garrett v. Fleming, 362 F.3d 692, 696 (10th Cir. 2004). Thus, Plaintiff must submit this
request pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). If Plaintiff is seeking leave to file a Second
Amended Complaint, he must file a motion which complies with the federal and local rules
and which includes the proposed Second Amended Complaint as a document separate
from the motion. Plaintiff is warned that the proposed Second Amended Complaint must
not contain any previously dismissed claims or defendants. Any proposed Second
Amended Complaint which does not comply with this Minute Order will be summarily
stricken.
The Court notes that Plaintiff’s Amended Prisoner Complaint [Docket No. 70; Filed
October 27, 2011] is the presently governing pleading.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any filing submitted to the Court by Plaintiff
seeking relief must be titled as a motion and must clearly state the requested relief.
Plaintiff has demonstrated his ability to file a motion, as well as his ability to submit
numerous requests for relief to the Court. Any future filing not complying with this
instruction will be summarily stricken or simply ignored. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1C. (“A
motion shall be made in a separate paper.”); D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1H. (“A verbose,
redundant, ungrammatical, or unintelligible motion, response, or reply may be stricken or
returned for revision, and its filing may be grounds for imposing sanctions.”).
Dated: November 15, 2011

2