Roselli v. Wands

Filing 27

MINUTE ORDER granting in part and denying in part 26 Motion to Stay for Thirty Days, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 6/20/2012.(skssl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-00312-BNB
PATRICK ROSELLI,
Applicant,
v.
JULIE WANDS,
Respondent.

MINUTE ORDER
ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE BOYD N. BOLAND
This matter is before the Court on the motion titled “Petitioners [sic] Motion to
Stay for Thirty Days or Send a Copy of the U.S. Attorneys Response to the Preliminary
Order Regarding Exhaustion Due to Continued Interference With His Access to His
Legal Assistant and Co-Plaintiff in their Civil Action for Advice” (ECF No. 26) that
Applicant, Patrick J. Roselli, filed on June 18, 2012. In the motion, Mr. Roselli asks for a
copy of the “U.S. Attorneys [sic] Response to the Preliminary Response Ordered by this
Court.”
The Court initially notes that there is no “U.S. Attorneys [sic] Response to the
Preliminary Response Ordered by this Court.” There is, however, a preliminary
response (ECF No. 17) filed on April 24, 2012, by Respondents in response to the
Court’s April 3, 2012, order (ECF No. 10) for such a response. The Court further notes
that Mr. Roselli already has a copy of the April 24 response because there is no
indication in the Court’s docketing records that the copy of the response mailed to Mr.
Roselli was returned as undeliverable.
The other individuals Mr. Roselli mentions in the June 18 motion are not parties
to this action and, therefore, the Court will not mail them copies of any documents in this
case.
To the extent Mr. Roselli seeks a thirty-day extension of time in which to file a
reply to the preliminary response, the request is GRANTED, despite the fact that in the
May 31, 2012, minute order (ECF No. 22) he was informed that no further extensions
would be granted.
Dated: June 20, 2012