Banks v. Arapahoe County Detention Center et al

Filing 22

MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 11/13/12 DENYING 21 Motion for Reconsideration re 6 Order on Motion For Appointment of Counsel. Plaintiff continues to have thirty (30) days from the order of November 8, 2012 (ECF No. 20), in which to file an amended complaint as directed. (nmmsl, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 12-cv-02014-BNB TORREY V. BANKS, Plaintiff, v. ARAPAHOE COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, CHIEF WALCHER OF A.C.S.O. LIEUTENANT KNIGHT OF A.C.S.O., SUPERVISOR LIBRARIAN SHEILA CLARK OF A.C.S.O., CAPTAIN JOHN DOE OF A.C.S.O., and DEPUTY KRAUS OF A.C,S.O., Disciplinary Board Member, DEPUTY GALLEGOS OF A.C.S.O. (Disciplinary Board Member), DEPUTY JOHN DOE #1 (Disciplinary Board Member), SERGEANT JOHN DOE OF A.C.S.O., ERIN, Librarian Employee of A.C.S.O., DEPUTY BENDICROFT of the A.C.S.O., DEPUTY JOHN DOE #2 of the A.C.S.O. (Disciplinary Board Member), DEPUTY JOHN DOE #3 of the A.C.S.O. (Disciplinary Board Member), OFFICER JANE DOE of Lakewood Police Department, OFFICER JOHN DOE #1 of Lakewood Police Department, and OFFICER JOHN DOE #2 of Lakewood Police Department, Defendants. MINUTE ORDER ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE BOYD N. BOLAND This matter is before the Court on the motion (ECF No. 21) that Plaintiff, Torrey V. Banks, filed pro se on November 9, 2012, asking the Court to reconsider the minute order of September 20, 2012 (ECF No. 14). The September 20 minute order denied Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider the Court’s order of August 2, 2012 (ECF No. 6 at 3) denying as premature the appointment of counsel to represent him. The November 9 motion is DENIED. Plaintiff continues to have thirty (30) days from the order of November 8, 2012 (ECF No. 20), in which to file an amended complaint as directed. Failure to do so within the time allowed will result in the dismissal of the instant action. Dated: November 13, 2012

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?