Huffman v. Bureau of Prisons et al

Filing 173

MINUTE ORDER denying 131 Motion for Order; denying 170 Motion for Leave. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 1/17/12.(cmacd )

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 to File Motions Exhibits”
[Docket No. 170; Filed January 11, 2012] and Plaintiff’s “Request Transfer Prohibited
for Safety” [Docket No. 131; Filed November 30, 2011].
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion to File Motions Exhibits” [#170] is
DENIED. The Court interprets this Motion as seeking permission to lodge nearly 250
pages of documents on the record as “Exhibits” to disposed-of motions, for Plaintiff’s use
at trial. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d), evidentiary materials need not be filed on the
docket “until they are used in the proceeding or the court orders filing.” The Court has no
need of the 250 pages of documents at this stage of the litigation, as the motions to which
Plaintiff refers have been ruled on, and no trial date is set.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Request Transfer Prohibited for Safety”
[#131] is DENIED for the reasons stated in the Recommendation issued December 8, 2011
[#140] and the Minute Order issued January 10, 2012 [#168]. Again, “the transfer of an
inmate to less amenable and more restrictive quarters for nonpunitive reasons is well within
the terms of confinement ordinarily contemplated by a prison sentence.” Hewitt v. Helms,
459 U.S. 460, 468 (1983), overruled in part on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515
1

U.S. 472 (1995); see also Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 228 (1976) (noting that
“[w]hatever expectation the prisoner may have in remaining at a particular prison so long
as he behaves himself, it is too ephemeral and insubstantial to trigger procedural due
process protections so long as prison officials have discretion to transfer him for whatever
reason or for no reason at all”). Prison officials retain “broad administrative and
discretionary authority to manage and control the prison institution,” including the location
of a prisoner's incarceration. Penrod v. Zavaras, 94 F.3d 1399, 1405 (10th Cir. 1996)
(citing Bailey v. Shillinger, 828 F.2d 651, 653 (10th Cir.1987)). See also Wedelstedt v.
Wiley, 477 F.3d 1160, 1165-66 (10th Cir. 2007) (explaining that Section 3621(b) of 18
U.S.C. conveys discretion to the Bureau of Prisons in designating where a prisoner is
incarcerated); United States v. Roberts, 190 F. App'x 717, 720 (10th Cir. 2006) (Section
3621(b) “gives primary authority to the executive branch to determine the facility where a
prisoner should be placed.”). Plaintiff provides no legal authority to the contrary in support
of his request.
Dated: January 17, 2012

2