Robledo-Valdez v. Smelser et al

Filing 60

MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 41 Motion to Amend. Order denying as moot 43 Motion to Strike by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 05/03/13.(jjhsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01833-WYD-KLM
CRAIG ROBLEDO-VALDEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
DICK SMELSER, Warden of CCA,
RAY ROMERO, of CCCF,
ALBERT MARTINEZ, of CCA,
TIANA LUCERO, of CCCF,
ELIJAH RIDGEWELL,
JUDY BREZINDINE,
RAMOS, Officer,
SANTISTEVAN, Officer,
RACHAEL INFANTE,
GONZALES, Conselor,
MONREAL, Sergeant,
ACKER, Sergeant,
SHANE KOLANDER,
PELSTER, Sergeant,
TONY CAROCHI,
DANIEL CHAVEZ,
C. REYES,
D. CORTESE,
2 UNNMED PPMU OFFICERS, and
RANDY MARTINEZ,

Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement/Ammend
Claim [sic] [Docket No. 41; Filed January 25, 2013] (the “Motion to Amend”) and on
Defendants Tony Carochi and D. Cortese’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s “Motion to
Supplement/Ammend [sic] Claim” [Docket No. 43; Filed February 15, 2013] (the “Motion
1

to Strike”).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Amend [#41] is DENIED without
prejudice. If Plaintiff, who proceeds in this matter pro se, is seeking leave to file an
Amended Complaint, he must file a motion which complies with the federal and local rules,
namely, Fed. R. Civ. P. 15, and which includes the proposed Amended Complaint as
a document separate from the Motion. The Court will not permit piecemeal adjudication
of Plaintiff’s case; thus Plaintiff must include all claims he seeks to bring and defendants
he intends to name in the proposed Amended Complaint. In light of this ruling,
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Strike [#43] is DENIED as moot.

Dated: May 3, 2013

2