Huffman v. Bureau of Prisons et al

Filing 237

MINUTE ORDER. Plaintiff's 231 Motion for Copy of Response and 232 Motion to Be Provided File are granted in part and denied in part. The 233 Motion to Correct Record is denied. The 234 Motion to Reinstate BOP as Defendant is denied. The 235 to Serve 2 Amended Complaints is denied without prejudice. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 6/13/12.(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 Copy of Response
[Docket No. 231; Filed June 11, 2012]; Motion to Be Provided File [Docket No. 232; Filed
June 11, 2012]; Motion to Correct Record [Docket No. 33; Filed June 11, 2012]; Motion
to Reinstate BOP as Defendant [Docket No. 234; Filed June 11, 2012] and Motion to
Serve 2 Amended Complaints [Docket No. 235; Filed June 11, 2012]. The Court
addresses each Motion in turn.
In the Motion for Copy of Response and Motion to Be Provided File, Plaintiff asks
for a copy of the docket and all docket entries in this matter. As the Court has informed
Plaintiff on more than one occasion, 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). The Court previously instructed the
Clerk’s Office to mail copies of certain docket entries to Plaintiff, as a one-time courtesy.
See [#163]. The Court will do the same now, in consideration of Plaintiff’s incarcerated and
pro se status, but will likely decline to do so again. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Copy of Response [#231]
and Motion to Be Provided File [#232] are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
1

The Clerk’s Office is directed to mail to Plaintiff a copy of the docket sheet and a copy of
the Amended Complaint [#70], Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(1) [#224], and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [#229]. Plaintiff
is reminded that his Responses to the two dispositive motions are due on or before July
6, 2012. See [#228].
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will likely decline to grant any further
request for complimentary copies of the docket and docket entries by Plaintiff, and future
requests may result in the imposition of copying fees to be deducted from Plaintiff’s inmate
account.
In the Motion to Correct Record, Plaintiff appears to be asking for permission to sue
the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) and the BOP, but does not state any
supportive factual allegations, and does not include a proposed Second Amended
Complaint with his Motion. On October 20, 2011, the District Judge dismissed the BOP as
“immune from monetary liability.” [#65] at 3. Plaintiff presents no authority to the contrary.
If Plaintiff seeks permission to add defendants and corresponding factual allegations to his
complaint, he must follow the below-described procedure in order to do so. Accordingly,
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Correct Record [#233] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Reinstate BOP as Defendant
[#234] is DENIED for the same reason.
Regarding the Motion to Serve 2 Amended Complaints [#235], the Court denies this
motion without prejudice for the reason stated in the Minute Order issued November 30,
2011 [#128]. 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. Accordingly,
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Serve 2 Amended Complaints
[#235] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s failure to timely respond to the two
pending dispositive motions WILL RESULT IN A RECOMMENDATION THAT THIS
MATTER BE DISMISSED.
Dated: June 13, 2012

2