Tuttamore v. Allred et al

Filing 92

MINUTE ORDER granting in part and denying in part 90 Plaintiff's Motion to Move the Case Forward, by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 2/8/12.(wjc, )

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 to Move the Case Forward” (Doc. No. 90, filed Feb. 2. 2012) is GRANTED
in part and DENIED in part. The court notes that this case is “mov[ing] . . . forward on all
proceedings.” Although Plaintiff appears to believe that these proceedings have been stayed
pursuant to the parties’ “Joint Motion to Stay Proceedings” (Doc. No. 66, filed Nov. 14, 2011),
no stay was ultimately entered. (See Doc. No. 69, filed Nov. 14, 2011.) Rather the court vacated
the Scheduling Conference set for December 8, 2011, and the parties were ordered to file a status
report advising the court whether the Settlement Conference should be reset. (See id.)
Additionally, while the court continued the deadlines for Defendants’ replies in support of their
motions for summary judgment and to dismiss (see Doc. No. 72, filed Nov. 21, 2011), it has
since ordered Defendants to file their replies no later than February 13, 2012 (see Doc. No. 89,
filed Jan. 27, 2011).
To the extent that Plaintiff’s motion appears to seeks to have the Scheduling Conference reset,
the court notes that a Scheduling Conference is not required in this matter. More specifically,
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B)(iv), pro se actions brought by individuals in the custody

of the United States, a state, or a state subdivision are a category of proceedings “exempt from
initial disclosure.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B)(iv). Additionally, the local rules of this court
provide that a scheduling order and orders for discovery are unnecessary in categories of
proceedings listed in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B). D.C.COLO.LCivR 16.2.B.2. The court will
determine at a later date when and if a scheduling conference will be set.
Dated: February 8, 2012

2