Rainey v. Thorstad et al
ORDER denying as premature 18 Motion for Order; denying as premature 19 Motion for Order. By Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 6/26/12.(cmacd )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-00945-CMA-MEH
K. ROETKER, and
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on June 26, 2012.
Pending before the Court are two motions filed by Plaintiff: an “Unopposed Motion: Request
to Submit” [filed June 22, 2012; docket # 18] (“Docket #18”), and an “Unopposed Motion to Use
All Exhibits Submitted in Original Complaint, and to Submit Exhibits Promised in Amended
Complaint” [filed June 22, 2012; docket #19] (“Docket #19”).1 The motions do not appear to seek
to add allegations or claims to the operative pleading, but they do ask the Court to permit the
documents attached to Docket #18 to be used as exhibits in support of Plaintiff’s pleading.
However, like Plaintiff’s previous motions to submit additional documents [dockets ##4, 5] which
were denied by Judge Boland, the Court finds that the documents submitted with the present motions
are not necessary at this time. (See docket #6, 3.) Therefore, Docket #18 and Docket #19 are
denied as premature.
Plaintiff represents that both motions are unopposed; however, Plaintiff does not provide
the Court with any indiction that he obtained Defendants’ position on the relief requested. While
Plaintiff is exempt from the conferral requirements of D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1A during his
incarceration, the Court cautions Plaintiff against characterizing his motions as “unopposed” without
Defendants’ express consent.
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?