Billinger v. Doe Number 01, et al.

Filing 22

MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer: Status Conference held on 8/7/2012. The court DENIES without prejudice 9 Motion to Clarify. The court DENIES AS MOOT 12 Motion for Reconsideration. The court STRIKES 15 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The court DENIES 16 Motion to Clarify. The court GRANTS 17 Motion to Amend/Correct/Modify. FTR: Robin Mason. (cbscd, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer
Civil Action No.: 12-cv-01507-CMA-CBS
Date: August 7, 2012

FTR - Reporter Deck - Courtroom A402
Courtroom Deputy: Robin Mason

Parties:

Counsel:

BRADFORD JOHN CONDE BILLINGER,

Pro Se

Plaintiff,

v.
JOHN DOE NUMBER 01, et al.,
Defendants.

COURTROOM MINUTES/MINUTE ORDER
HEARING: STATUS CONFERENCE
Court in Session:
10:50 a.m.
Court calls case. Appearances of counsel. Mr. Bradford Billinger appears as pro se. No one
appears on behalf of any of the defendants.
The court addresses the plaintiff regarding the status of this case. Discussion regarding service
on the defendants, defendant’s attorney representation, the complaint not complying with Rule 8,
and relevant case law. Further discussion regarding issues with complaint. The court advises
the plaintiff that it shall issue an order to strike the complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8
but that the plaintiff shall be permitted to file a new one.
Discussion regarding Rule 4, service by certified mail not being permitted (must personally be
serve), not being able to sue a “John Doe”, the named parties who are being sued, Rule 4(i), and
the process of suing and service on government employees.
Discussion regarding the defendants who live in Las Vegas, Nevada, the jurisdiction of this
court, statute of limitation’s effect on the claims and allegations, the plaintiff obtaining counsel
to represent him with this lawsuit, and his other pending motions.

The court addresses the parties regarding the plaintiff's MOTION to Clarify (Docket No. 9, filed
on 7/16/2012), the plaintiff's MOTION to Object to an #3 Order of the Court (Docket No. 12,
filed on 7/18/2012), the plaintiff’s MOTION to Amend Summons (Docket No. 17, 8/2/2012),
and the plaintiff's MOTION to Clarify Rule 4(i) (Docket No. 16, filed on 8/2/2012)
ORDERED: The court DENIES without prejudice the plaintiff’s MOTION to Clarify
(Docket No. 9, filed on 7/16/2012). The court DENIES AS MOOT the
plaintiff’s MOTION to Object to an #3 Order of the Court (Docket No. 12, filed
on 7/18/2012). The court GRANTS the plaintiff’s MOTION to Amend
Summons (Docket No. 17, 8/2/2012). The court DENIES without prejudice the
plaintiff’s MOTION to Clarify Rule 4(i) (Docket No. 16, filed on 8/2/2012).
Further discussion regarding the plaintiff’s MOTION to Clarify Rule 4(i) (Docket No. 16, filed
on 8/2/2012) and Rule 5.
The court addresses the plaintiff regarding MOTION for Injunctions and Declaratory Relief
(Docket No.15, filed on 8/2/2012).
Discussion regarding Rule 65 and seeking injunctive relief.
ORDERED: The court STRIKES the plaintiff’s MOTION for Injunctions and Declaratory
Relief (Docket No. 15, filed on 8/2/2012)
HEARING CONCLUDED.
Court in recess:
Total time in court:

11:39 a.m.
00:49

To order transcripts of hearings with Magistrate Judge Shaffer, please contact Avery Woods Reporting at
[phone] or toll free at 1-800-962-3345.