Patterson v. Santini et al
ORDER denying 105 Motion for Clarification by Judge Raymond P. Moore on 6/9/14.(dkals, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Raymond P. Moore
Civil Case No. 11-cv-01899-RM-KLM
GERALD LEE PATTERSON,
GEORGE SANTINI, M.D.,
CAMACHO, P.A., and
FIVE JOHN/JANE DOES,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION (ECF NO. 105)
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification seeking an
order to “clarify” a certain Stipulation of Compromise Settlement (“Stipulation”). (ECF No.
105.) The Court is mindful that Plaintiff proceeds pro se and reviews his papers liberally and
holds them to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. See Haines v. Kerner,
404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Trackwell v. United States Govt., 472 F.3d 1242, 1243 (10th Cir.
2007). Nonetheless, in the Motion, Plaintiff argues summarily the Stipulation he entered into
was made under duress but fails to provide any specifics or support. Plaintiff also contends that
he did not have an opportunity to consult with counsel but he has no counsel in this matter and
fails to substantiate such contention. As such, the requested order for the parties/counsel to
provide a clarification of the Stipulation cannot be sustained. Correspondingly, to the extent that
Plaintiff also requests the reopening of this administratively closed case based on such
arguments, they are insufficient to show good cause. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2. It is therefore
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification (ECF No. 105) is DENIED.
DATED this 9th day of June, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
RAYMOND P. MOORE
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?