Escobar v. Foster et al

Filing 16

MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 12 Motion for Leave to Submit his Supplemental Complaint. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 4/9/2012.(jjpsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-00489-CMA-KLM
JOSE MEDINA ESCOBAR,
Plaintiff,
v.
ASSOCIATE WARDEN S. FOSTER,
DEPUTY DIRECTOR L. REID,
MAJOR L. MAIFELD,
LIEUTENANT L. TRAVIS,
LIEUTENANT TEDEMANN,
LIEUTENANT BURKE,
CAPTAIN PADILLA,
CAPTAIN D. WILLIAMS,
SERGEANT MARQUEZ,
SERGEANT MONTGOMERY,
SERGEANT KELEMAN,
SERGEANT HAWKINS,
SERGEANT FRETWELL,
C/O CALDARONELLO,
C/O P. ARCHULETA,
C/O ALANIS,
C/O AURITI,
C/O SAUCIDO,
C/O KITCHEN,
C/O S. HARTUNG,
C/O MONTANEZ,
C/O B. TETRICK, and
C/O VERSTEEGH,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Submit his
Supplemental Complaint [Docket No. 12; Filed April 5, 2012] (the “Motion”).
1

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Although Plaintiff proceeds pro se in this matter, he is obligated to comply with the same
rules of procedure that govern all litigants. See Green v. Dorrell, 969 F.2d 915, 917 (10th
Cir. 1992). The Court will not permit piecemeal pleading, and thus will not allow Plaintiff
to submit a “supplemental complaint” to be considered in addition to his Complaint [#1],
which is the operative pleading. If Plaintiff wants to file an Amended Complaint, he must
submit one proposed Amended Complaint for the Court’s review.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the Waiver of Service of Summons
[Docket No. 9; Filed March 29, 2012], Defendants Reid, Foster, Travis, Padilla, Hawkins,
Saucido, Tetrick, Williams, Maifeld, Burke, Marquez, Auriti, Montanez, Stringer, Fretwell,
Tedemann, Caldaronello, Montgomery, Archuleta, and Alanis shall answer or otherwise
respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint [#1] on or before May 29, 2012.
To date, Defendants Keleman, Kitchen, and Versteegh remain unserved, and
Plaintiff has not provided a physical address for Defendant Versteegh. See Return, [#11]
(“cannot serve P.O. Box - need physical address”).
Dated: April 9, 2012

2