Huffman v. Bureau of Prisons et al

Filing 163

MINUTE ORDER. Plaintiff's 158 Motion for Reconsideration is denied. The 159 Motion for Copy of the Entire File is granted in part. The 160 Motion for Extension and Copy of Affidavit is granted in part and denied as moot in all other aspects. The 161 Motion to Clarify Date is denied as moot. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 12/30/11.(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 Motion for Reconsideration [Docket
No. 158; Filed December 28, 2011], Motion for Copy of Entire File [Docket No. 159; Filed
December 28, 2011], Motion for Extension and Copy of Affidavit [Docket No. 160; Filed
December 28, 2011, and Motion to Clarify Date [Docket No. 161; Filed December 28,
2011].
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Reconsideration [#158] is DENIED.
Plaintiff provides no legal authority for his request, and the Court will not construct an
argument on his behalf. See Whitney v. New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170, 1173-74 (10th Cir.
1997) (The Court should not be a pro se litigant’s advocate, nor should the Court “supply
additional factual allegations to round out [a pro se litigant’s] complaint or construct a legal
theory on [his] behalf.”) (internal citation omitted).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Copy of Entire File [#159] is
GRANTED IN PART as follows. The Clerk’s Office is directed to mail to Plaintiff a copy of
the docket and a copy of the Orders located at Docket Nos. 76, 85, 108, 119, 128, 135,
137, 140, 149, and 153. The Court grants this request as a one-time courtesy to Plaintiff.
The Court reminds Plaintiff that regardless of his in forma pauperis status, he is not entitled
1

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 Extension and Copy of Affidavit
[#160] is GRANTED IN PART as follows. The Clerk’s Office is directed to mail to Plaintiff
a copy of Dr. Clemmer’s affidavit located at Docket No. 139. The Motion is DENIED AS
MOOT in all other respects, as the District Court affirmed the December 8, 2011
Recommendation on December 28, 2011 [#153].
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Clarify Date [#161] is DENIED AS
MOOT. All of Plaintiff’s motions seeking to hold Defendants in contempt of court have
been resolved.
Dated: December 30, 2011

2