Jose Orozco, et al v. Castle, Stawiarki, LLC et al

Filing 50

MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice in part and denying as moot in part 19 Plaintiff Jose Orozco's "Verified Amend [sic] to Complaint and Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief," by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 6/28/2012. (mehcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01385-WJM-MEH
AMERICA’S HOME RETENTION SERVICES, and
JUAN DOE 1 THROUGH JUAN DOE 166,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CASTLE, STAWIARSKI, LLC,
LAWRENCE E. CASTLE,
GOVERNMENT TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS, (GTS),
ROBERT J. HOPP & ASSOCIATES LLC,
GARY GLENN,
ENTRAVISION/UNIVISION KCEC-TV,
CBS 4 NEWS KCNC-TV,
DENVER DISTRICT ATTORNEY, and
ROBERT J. HOPP,
Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on June 28, 2012.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Jose Orozco’s “Verified Amend [sic] to Complaint and
Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief” [filed June 20, 2012; docket #19] filed by
Plaintiff Jose Orozco (hereinafter “Plaintiff”). Plaintiff’s motion appears to request two forms of
relief: (1) leave to amend Plaintiffs’ pleadings to add the Adams County Sheriff Department as a
defendant; and (2) a preliminary injunction against the Adams County Sheriff Department. The
Court suspects that Judge Martinez’s June 14, 2012 Order prompted Plaintiff’s first request, as it
instructs Plaintiff that the Court will not consider a renewed request for injunctive relief against the
Adams County Sheriff’s Department unless Plaintiff amends his Complaint to add the entity as a
defendant. (Docket #18, 3.)
Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction against the Adams County Sheriff Department
is denied without prejudice, as Plaintiffs have not yet filed a proper amended complaint naming
the Adams County Sheriff Department as a defendant. (See docket #18.) The Court declines to
construe the instant motion as an amended pleading because it is labeled as a motion and does not
contain a complete statement of Plaintiffs’ claims.
Second, Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A), a party may amend its pleading once as a
matter of course within 21 days after serving it. Because Defendants in this case have not been
served, Plaintiffs need not seek leave of court to file an amended complaint. Therefore, with respect

to Plaintiff’s request for leave to amend, the motion is denied as moot. Plaintiffs may file an
amended complaint in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A) and all other federal and local
rules. In so doing, Plaintiffs shall include as parties all persons who have recently entered their
appearances in this action. (See dockets ##22-48.) However, the Court reminds Plaintiffs that pro
se persons are not authorized to represent one another, and that every pleading or motion filed in this
action must be personally signed by each party in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a) unless or
until counsel enters an appearance on his or her behalf.
For the reasons described above, Plaintiff’s motion is denied without prejudice in part, and
denied as moot in part.

2