Watts v. Shulman et al

Filing 62

MINUTE ORDER denying 60 Motion for Change of Relief Request. by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 11/14/2013.(trlee, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-02993-RM-KLM
HOWARD M. WATTS, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
DANIEL WERFEL, Acting Commissioner of the IRS,
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of the SSA,
CAROLYN SIMMONS, Associate Commissioner,
ANNETTE STREETER, Appeals Area Director, IRS,
J. TRUJILLO, Collections Agent, IRS, and
ELLEN DEMITRE, Tax Payer Advocate, IRS,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Change of Relief Request [#60]1 (the
“Motion”). On October 30, 2012, the Court entered a Recommendation [#59]. In the
Recommendation, the Court found that it lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims and
recommended dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Recommendation [#59] at
11. In the Motion, Plaintiff states that he “understands his initial request for relief might be
beyond the authority of the Court” and asks the Court to “order the return of his funds,
$943.00 plus interest from Jan[uary] 26, 2006 and any other costs the Court may deem
appropriate.” Motion [#60] at 2. The Court construes this request as an indication that
Plaintiff wishes to amend his Amended Complaint [#7].
As an initial matter, the Court notes that any attempt to amend in order to assert
additional or different claims against Defendants will fail for the reasons articulated in the
Recommendation [#59]. The Court’s lack of jurisdiction relates to the identities of the
named Defendants, not what relief Plaintiff seeks.

1

“[#60]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to
a specific paper by the Court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I
use this convention throughout this Minute Order.

1

Further, if Plaintiff 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(a) and
20(a), and which includes the proposed Second 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. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#60] is DENIED without prejudice.
Dated: November 14, 2013

2