Rainey v. Huertas
MINUTE ORDER denying 14 Unopposed Motion to Submit Two Grievances into Complaint by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 6/25/12.(dkals, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01434-CMA-MEH
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on June 25, 2012.
Plaintiff’s “Unopposed Motion to Submit Two Grievances into Complaint” [filed June 22,
2012; docket #14] is denied. To the extent the Plaintiff wishes to amend his Complaint to add
allegations in this case, he may file an Amended Complaint once as a matter of course (i.e., without
seeking permission from the Court) either before or within 21 days after the Defendant files an
answer or motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Here, the Plaintiff has
not yet filed an amended pleading and the Defendant has not yet filed an answer or other response
to the operative Complaint.
The Court also notes that Plaintiff has improperly characterized his motion as “unopposed.”
While Plaintiff is exempt from the conferral requirements of Local Rule 7.1A during his
incarceration, the Plaintiff may only characterize his motions as “unopposed” if he has conferred
with the opposing party and received confirmation from such party that the motion will not be
opposed. See D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1A and 7.1B.
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?