Huffman v. Bureau of Prisons et al

Filing 266

MINUTE ORDER striking 251 Motion for Order; striking 252 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply ; striking 253 Motion for Contempt; striking 254 Motion to Amend/Correct/Modify; striking 255 Motion to Amend/Correct/Modify; s triking 256 Motion to Clarify; striking 257 Motion for Order; striking 258 Motion for Order; striking 259 Motion for Order; striking 260 Motion for Order; striking 261 Motion to Stay; striking 262 Motion to Stay; striking 263 Motion for Order by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 7/16/12.(dkals, )

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 thirteen motions submitted by Plaintiff [Docket
Nos. 251 through 263; Filed July 12, 2012] (the “Motions”).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motions are STRICKEN pursuant to
D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1H and the Court’s “inherent power to impose a variety of sanctions
on litigants in order to regulate its docket, promote judicial efficiency, and deter frivolous
filings.” E.g., McMurray v. McCelmoore, 445 F. App’x 43, 45 (10th Cir. 2011) (affirming
district court’s imposition of filing restrictions against abusive litigant). The Motions are
largely undecipherable (as is Plaintiff’s pattern of filing in this matter), imponderous, and
at times contradictory. For example, Plaintiff expresses his intent to proceed with this
matter [#258], then asks for a 60-day stay in two separate filings [## 261, 262].
Further, the Motions are in large part duplicative of Plaintiff’s previous requests that
the Court has already resolved. See Minute Orders, [## 108, 128, 137, 149, 163, 192, 203,
213, 222, 237, 245, 248].
Regarding Plaintiff’s allegation that he is being “packed up,” the Court notes that the
Federal Bureau of Prisons Inmate Locator indicates that Plaintiff remains incarcerated at
1

the Federal Correctional Institution (Low) in Coleman, Florida, which is the address
presently reflected on the docket.1
The Court reminds Plaintiff for the third time that his failure to timely respond to
the two pending dispositive motions will result in a Recommendation that this matter
be dismissed. See [#237] (first time); [#245] (second time). Plaintiff’s responses are due
on or before July 20, 2012.
Dated: July 16, 2012

1

The Court may take judicial notice of its own files and records, as well as of facts which
are a matter of public record. St. Louis Baptist Temple, Inc. v. FDIC, 605 F.2d 1169, 1172 (10th
Cir. 1979).

2