Huffman v. Bureau of Prisons et al
Filing
128
MINUTE ORDER denying 122 Plaintiff's Denied Court Access; granting 123 Motion for Clarificaton; denying 124 Motion for Verification. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 11/30/11.(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 Plaintiff’s “Denied Court Access” [Docket No.
122; Filed November 25, 2011], Motion for Clarification [Docket No. 123; Filed November
25, 2011], and Motion for Verification [Docket No. 124; Filed November 25, 2011].
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the document titled “Denied Court Access” [#122]
is DENIED. The Court construes this document as a request for a Court order forcing the
Bureau of Prisons, which is not a named defendant in this action, to provide Plaintiff with
unlimited and cost-free “pen-paper-envelopes.” This document does not articulate any
factual allegations or connect such allegations to a Defendant identified in the Amended
Prisoner Complaint [#70]. Without such information, the Court does not have a
jurisdictional basis to further evaluate the relief requested. See Recommendation, [#76]
at 3. In any event, regardless of Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status, he is not entitled to
unlimited cost-free copies and forms in this litigation. See Windsor v. Martindale, 175
F.R.D. 665, 670-72 (D. Colo. 1997).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Clarification [#123] is GRANTED as
follows. In this Motion, Plaintiff inquires about “Claims #10-13.” The Court previously
explained in a Minute Order issued November 17, 2011 [#116] that the Amended Prisoner
1
Complaint [#70] is the presently governing pleading. The Amended Prisoner Complaint
contains nine claims for relief. Plaintiff submitted a document identifying three claims from
Brooklyn, New York, on November 7, 2011 [#93], and a Prisoner Complaint form
enumerating claims numbered 10 through 13 on November 9, 2011 [#97]. These
documents were not filed as a result of instructions from the Court and do not comply with
the federal and local rules. If Plaintiff is seeking leave to file a Second Amended Prisoner
Complaint, he must file a motion which complies with the applicable federal and local rules
and which includes the proposed Second Amended Prisoner Complaint stating all claims
Plaintiff seeks to pursue as a document separate from the motion. The Court will not
permit the adjudication of this case in piecemeal fashion. Plaintiff, as a pro se litigant, is
required to follow the same rules of procedure that govern all litigants in this District.
Nielson v. Price, 17 F.3d 1276, 1277 (10th Cir. 1994). Any proposed Second Amended
Prisoner Complaint which does not comply with this Minute Order will be summarily
stricken.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Verification [#124] is DENIED as
follows. Plaintiff asks the Court to transfer claims dismissed from this case on the basis
that the factual allegations took place in Brooklyn, New York, which is out of the
jurisdictional reach of this District. In the Order issued October 20, 2011 [#65], Senior
District Judge Babcock dismissed all claims arising from other states and asserted against
federal prison officials residing outside of Colorado. The Court specifically declined to
transfer the claims in lieu of dismissal “because Mr. Huffman fails to identify adequately the
responsible defendant and each defendant’s specific conduct that is the basis for his
lawsuit.” [#65] at 5. Plaintiff provides no legal authority indicating that this decision, which
is now the law of the case, should be reconsidered.
Dated: November 30, 2011
2
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?