Huffman v. Bureau of Prisons et al

Filing 310

MINUTE ORDER denying as moot 289 Motion for 60-Day Extension, 292 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint, 294 Motion for Contempt, 295 Motion for Documents, 299 Motion for Contempt of Court, and 303 Motion for Status, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 1/10/13.(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 Plaintiff’s Motion for 60-Day Extension [Docket
No. 289; Filed September 24, 2012], Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint
[#292; Filed September 28, 2012], Motion for Contempt [#294; Filed October 1, 2012],
Motion for Documents [#295; Filed October 1, 2012], Motion for Contempt of Court
[#299; Filed October 22, 2012] and Motion for Status [#303; Filed November 13, 2012]
(collectively, “the Motions”). Defendants have not filed a response to any of the Motions.
The Court recently issued a Recommendation [#309] that this action be dismissed.1
1

The only one of the Motions that could have conceivably had an impact on the Court’s
Recommendation [#309] is the Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint [#292]. In
Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint attached to the motion, he asserts jurisdiction pursuant
to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) and
names the Bureau of Prisons as the sole defendant. [#292-1]. In Bivens, however, the
Supreme Court recognized an “implied cause of action for damages against federal agents who
allegedly violated the Constitution.” Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 473 (citing
Bivens, 403 U.S. 388). But this implied cause of action does not extend to suits against a
federal agency. Id. Because Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint names the Bureau of
Prisons, a federal agency, as the only defendant, jurisdiction over the matter cannot be based
on Bivens. As a result, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint would have been
denied as futile.

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that in light of the Court’s Recommendation [#309] that
this action be dismissed, Plaintiff’s Motions [## 289, 292, 294, 295, 299 and 303] are
DENIED AS MOOT.
Dated: January 10, 2013