Sayed v. Courtney et al

Filing 132

ORDER denying 127 Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum; denying 130 Motion to Change Venue; denying 131 Motion in Limine, denying 105 Plaintiff's petition for writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum. ORDERS Plaintiff not to file any papers pro se with the exception of a pro se motion by Plaintiff to terminate counsel's representation. By Judge Raymond P. Moore on 1/27/2015.(tscha, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Raymond P. Moore Civil Action No. 12-cv-01134-RM-KMT HAZHAR A. SAYED, Plaintiff, v. LT. NORVA COURTNEY, individual capacity, Defendant. ORDER This matter is before the Court Plaintiff Hazhar A. Sayed’s several motions and petition to the Court. Specifically, pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s: (1) petition for writ of habeas corpus ad testifcandum (ECF No. 105); (2) motion for writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum (ECF No. 127); (3) motion to change venue (ECF No. 130); and (4) motion in limine (ECF No. 131). On January 6, 2015, subsequent to a trial preparation conference in this matter, the Court, pursuant to Local Attorney Rule 15 appointed pro bono counsel for Plaintiff. (ECF No. 119.) On January 7, 2015, the Clerk of the Court provided notice of pro bono appointment to Plaintiff and the selected counsel. (ECF No. 120.) On January 8, 2015, Joshua Fredrick Bugos and Brent Rollow Owen entered their appearances on Plaintiff’s behalf. (ECF Nos. 121; 122.) Subsequent to Plaintiff’s counsel’s appointment and their entering appearances on Plaintiff’s behalf, Plaintiff 1 has continued to file motions on his own. (ECF Nos. 127; 130, 131.) To avoid inefficiencies and potential inconsistencies that can result otherwise and to effectuate the purposes for which counsel was appointed in the first place, the Court will deem counsel to speak exclusively on Plaintiff’s behalf. The Court will disregard any and all papers filed pro se by Plaintiff with the exception of a pro se motion by Plaintiff to terminate counsel’s representation. Based on the foregoing, the Court: (1) DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff’s petition for writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum (ECF No. 105); (2) DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff’s motion for writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum (ECF No. 127); (3) DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff’s motion to change venue (ECF No. 130); (4) DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff’s motion in limine (ECF No. 131); and (5) ORDERS Plaintiff not to file any papers pro se with the exception of a pro se motion by Plaintiff to terminate counsel’s representation. DATED this 27th day of January, 2015. BY THE COURT: ____________________________________ RAYMOND P. MOORE United States District Judge 2

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?