Douglas v. City of Fort Collins et al

Filing 24

MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 21 a letter from Plaintiff, construed as a Motion for Documents, by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 6/10/2013. (mehcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-02615-MSK-MEH
AARON J. DOUGLAS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF FORT COLLINS and
CITY OF FORT COLLINS POLICE FORCE,
Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on June 10, 2013.
Pending before the Court is a letter from Plaintiff [filed June 4, 2013; docket #21], which the
Court construes as a Motion for Documents. In particular, Plaintiff seeks “electronic transmission
or hard copy versions of all previous filings he has made to the U.S. District Court, District of
Colorado.” (Docket #21 at 1.) Plaintiff’s Motion is denied without prejudice for the following
reasons.
Procedurally, the Court notes that Plaintiff has failed once again to comply fully with Fed.
R. Civ. P. 11(a) and D.C. Colo. LCivR 10.1K. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a),
Every pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one
attorney of record in the attorney’s name – or by a party personally if the party is
unrepresented. The paper must state the signer’s address, email address, and
telephone number.
Like Rule 11, D.C. Colo. LCivR 10.1K also requires all filed papers to include the name, current
mailing address, and telephone number of either the attorney of record or a pro se party, as well as
a legible signature. Plaintiff’s Motion contains his name and signature but lacks all other required
contact information.
Second, Plaintiff has not complied with Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a)(1)(D) and D.C. Colo. LCivR
5.1G. Rule 5(a)(1)(D) requires that a written motion filed with the Court must be served on every
party. Local Rule 5.1G requires, in pertinent part, that “[e]ach paper, other than one filed ex parte,
shall be accompanied by a certificate of service indicating the date it was served, the name and
address of the person to whom it was sent, and the manner of service.” Plaintiff’s Motion contains
no evidence of service on Defendant.
Procedural deficiencies aside, Plaintiff has not demonstrated a need for the documents he

requests. All documents filed in this action, including Plaintiff’s own documents, are available to
the public at a small cost. Such costs are common to all litigants who elect to file a lawsuit in
federal court. This is particularly true where, as here, the litigant has neither requested nor received
permission to proceed in forma pauperis.

2