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, )

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.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?