Tuttamore v. Allred et al

Filing 203

MINUTE ORDER denying in part 187 Motion Requesting the Magistrate to Respond to Numerous Unresponded [sic] Motions. By Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 12/18/2012. (klyon, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya
Civil Action No. 11–cv–01522–MSK–KMT

TIMOTHY S. TUTTAMORE,
Plaintiff,
v.
DR. ALLRED,
A. OSAGIE,
ADX WARDEN DAVIS,
M. SMITH, and
UNKNOWN UTILIZATION COMMITTEE MEMBERS, all in their official and individual
capacities,
Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER
ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KATHLEEN M. TAFOYA
Plaintiff’s “Motion Requesting the Magistrate to Respond to Numerous Unresponded [sic]
Motions” (Doc. No. 187, filed Dec. 6, 2012) is DENIED in part. To the extent that Plaintiff
seeks to have this court “respond” to several motions, Plaintiff is apprised as follows:
–The court granted Plaintiff’s “Motion for Leave to File 2nd Amended Complaint
and to Strike the First Amended Complaint” (Doc. No. 130) on December 6,
2012. (See Doc. No. 188.)
–Plaintiff’s “Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint” (Doc. No. 118, filed
Apr. 19, 2012) was terminated pursuant to District Judge Krieger’s order
administratively closing this case. (See Doc. No. 128, filed May 4, 2012.) In
addition, any relief sought in this motion is moot in light of the court’s order
granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File 2nd Amended Complaint. (Doc. No.
188.)

–The “‘Verified’ Plaintiffs [sic] Motion for a Preliminary Injunction for Proper
Access to the Courts” (Doc. No. 120, filed Apr. 19, 2012) was terminated
pursuant to the order administratively closing this case. (See Doc. No. 128.)
Moreover, at the time this Motion was filed, it did not relate to the subject-matter
of Plaintiff’s original Complaint—the operative pleading at that time. Penn v.
San Juan Hospital, 528 F.2d 1181, 1185 (10th Cir. 1975) (to succeed on a motion
for preliminary injunction motion, there must be a relationship between the
temporary and permanent relief sought). As such, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks
the same or similar relief, a renewed motion must be filed.
–As to Plaintiff’s “‘Verified’ Motion to Appoint Expert Witness and/or in
Alternative Reconsider Motion for Appointment of Counsel Doc. #12 & 24
and/or in Alternative Deem Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-20-602 as Constitutionally
Invalid” (Doc. No. 113) and “2nd Motion for an Appointment of Counsel” (Doc.
No. 132), the court has ordered further briefing on these motions. (See Doc. No.
185). A ruling will be issued a in due course after briefing is complete.
Dated: December 18, 2012

2