Coit v. Zavaras et al

Filing 65

MINUTE ORDER denying 61 Pro Se Incarcerated Plaintiff's Motion for Defendant's Counsel When Responding to Produce the Entire Administrative Regulation or Rule Quoted [sic] ; Denying 62 Pro Se Incarcerated Plaintiff's Motion to Order Colorado Department of Corrections to Send U.S. Marshal Defendant Dussart's Job Application. By Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 9/19/2012.(mjwcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12–cv–00609–WYD–MJW
JILL COIT,
Plaintiff,
v.
ARISTEDES ZAVARAS, Director of the Colorado Department of Corrections,
JAMES WELTON, Director C.I.D.,
LARRY REID, L.V.C.F.,
ROBERT CANTWELL, Director of Prison,
LLOYD WAIDE, L.V.C.F.,
MICHAEL DUSSART, L.V.C.F.,
C.I.D. DENNIS HOUGNON, Pueblo,
C.I.D. COLIN CARSON, D.W.C.F.,
JOHN MARTIN,
JANE/JOHN DOE-DOE, #1&2 (Who Took Legal Supreme Court Mail), D.W.C.F.,
JOAN SHOEMAKER,
Dr. P. FRANTZ,
JANE/JOHN DOE-DOE, #3 (Who Took 2 Cubic Feet Legal Box), D.W.C.F.,
Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
It is hereby ORDERED that the Pro Se Incarcerated Plaintiff’s Motion to Order
Colorado Department of Corrections to Send U.S. Marshal Defendant Dussart’s Job
Application (Docket No. 62) and the Pro Se Incarcerated Plaintiff’s Motion for
Defendant’s Counsel When Responding to Produce the Entire Administrative
Regulation or Rule Quoted [sic] (Docket No. 61) are both DENIED as premature. This
court has set a Rule 16 Scheduling Conference and Show Cause Hearing for November
5, 2012, at 8:30 a.m. See Docket No. 54. At that time, this court will conduct a Rule 16
Scheduling Conference and Show Cause hearing. This court will enter a Rule 16
Scheduling Order on November 5, 2012. The Rule 16 Scheduling Order will outline, in
detail, the discovery cut-off date, the final pretrial conference date, and will outline, with
particularity, the number of interrogatories, request for production of documents, request
for admissions, and depositions that each side to the lawsuit will be permitted to serve
and take. There will be other limitations placed on discovery in the Scheduling Order.
For these reasons, this court finds that the two subject motions (Docket Nos. 61 and 62)

2
are premature and therefore DENIED.
Date: September 19, 2012