Huffman v. Bureau of Prisons et al
Filing
192
MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 174 Order to Produce; denying 177 Motion for Contempt; denying 178 Motion For Holding Defendants for Obstructing Justice; denying as moot 179 Motion to Defendant in Contempt of Court. Defendants shall file a Status Report by 1/31/2012. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 1/23/12.(jjpsl, )
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 “Order to Produce” [Docket No. 174;
Filed January 18, 2012]; “Motion Find Defendant in Contempt of Court” [Docket No.
177; Filed January 18, 2012]; “Motion for Holding Defendants for Obstructing Justice”
[Docket No. 178; Filed January 18, 2012]; and “Motion to Defendant in Contempt of
Court” [Docket No. 179; Filed January 18, 2012].
As a preliminary matter, it has come to the Court’s attention through the Federal
Bureau of Prisons Inmate Locator that Plaintiff is now in custody at the Federal Transfer
Center (FTC) in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.1 Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that on or before January 31, 2012, Defendants shall file
a Status Report with the Court indicating 1) Plaintiff’s assigned facility and 2) their position
regarding the mootness of Plaintiff’s claims, if Plaintiff is now incarcerated outside of the
1
This Court may take judicial notice of court documents and matters of public record. St.
Louis Baptist Temple, Inc. v. FDIC, 605 F.2d 1169, 1171-72 (10th Cir. 1979). Location of inmates
in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons are, in large part, a matter of public record and can
be accessed online at http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/LocateInmate.jsp.
1
District of Colorado.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Order to Produce” [#174] is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court has not yet held a Preliminary Scheduling Conference
in this matter, thus discovery has not yet begun. Once discovery commences, Plaintiff may
issue written discovery requests to Defendants, which the Court will discuss at the
Preliminary Scheduling Conference set for April 17, 2012. If Plaintiff intends to challenge
Defendants’ discovery responses after he has received and reviewed the responses,
Plaintiff may file a motion compliant with Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 and D.C.COLO.LCivR 37.1.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion at #177 is DENIED for the
reasons stated in the Recommendation issued December 8, 2011 [#140] and adopted on
December 28, 2011 [#153].
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion at #178 is DENIED. In the Motion,
Plaintiff does not identify a Defendant to whom his allegations are directed. The Court thus
has no jurisdictional basis to further evaluate the relief requested, in the absence of a
named Defendant to whom the allegedly violative acts may be attributed. See Little v.
Jones, 607 F.3d 1245, 1251 (10th Cir. 2010) (affirming the denial of a motion for
preliminary injunction on the basis that the incarcerated pro se plaintiff had not “alleged that
the defendants named in the complaint participated in the alleged deprivations . . . .”).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion at #179 is DENIED AS MOOT.
Plaintiff asserts that he was not able to submit a copy of a certain document to the Court
because Defendant Derr refused to make such copy. Again, regardless of Plaintiff’s in
forma pauperis status, he is not entitled to unlimited cost-free copies and forms. See
Windsor v. Martindale, 175 F.R.D. 665, 670-72 (D. Colo. 1997). Furthermore, the Court
has no need of copies of any document at this stage in the litigation. No motions (other
than those stated herein) are presently pending, and the Scheduling Conference is set for
April 17, 2012.
Dated: January 23, 2012
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?