Farrell v. Wilson, et al

Filing 193

ORDER denying in part 172 Mr. Farrell's "Motion to Introduce Exhibits into Evidence"; denying as unnecessary 185 Mr. Farrell's "Motion for Assistance with Service of Process"; and denying 187 Mr. Farrell's Motion to Appoint Counsel. By Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer on 11/01/2015. (cbslc1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-01605-MSK-CBS
TERRENCE M. FARRELL, III,
Plaintiff,
v.
GREG KELLERMEYER,
CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, CO., and
CHRISTIAN STOB,
Defendants.

ORDER

Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer
This civil action comes before the court on (1) the “Motion to Introduce Exhibits into
Evidence”, (2) the “Motion for Assistance with Service of Process”, and (3) the “Motion for
Appointment of Coun[sel] . . . .” Pursuant to the Order Referring Case dated January 28,
2014 (Doc. # 42) and the memoranda dated September 23, 2015 (Doc. # 175), October 30,
2015 (Docs. # 190 and # 191), and November 2, 2015 (Doc. # 192), these matters were
referred to the Magistrate Judge. The court has reviewed the Motions and the entire case
file and is sufficiently advised in the premises.

1.

Mr. Farrell moves to “introduce . . . into evidence . . . requests for medical attention

gone unanswered by the Defendant and members of medical staff under the direction of
Defendant.” Mr. Farrell’s documents have been accepted and filed as exhibits. However,
“introduce[ing] exhibits into evidence” must be governed by the Federal Rules of Evidence at a
later, appropriate time in the case.

2.

Mr. Farrell seeks to use the court’s transmission facilities to make service under Rule

5(b)(2)(E). The Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado, D.C. COLO LCivR 5.1(d), state that “[w]hen a pleading or document is filed in
CM/ECF, it is served electronically under Fed. R. Civ.P. 5.” Mr. Farrell need not file a motion
for permission to sue the court’s transmission facilities with each of his filings.

3.

Mr. Farrell makes his fifth request for appointed counsel. (See Docs. # 15, # 27, # 50,

143; see also Docs. # 16, # 28, # 54, # 151 (orders denying Mr. Farrell’s previous requests for
appointed counsel)). His concern that he “cannot safely go to trial without the appointment of
coun[sel]” (see Doc. # 187 at 2 of 2) is premature, as no trial date has been set. For the
reasons previously stated, Mr. Farrell’s “Motion for Appointment of Coun[sel]” is denied.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1.

Mr. Farrell’s “Motion to Introduce Exhibits into Evidence” (filed September 22,

2015) (Doc. # 172) is DENIED IN PART. The introduction of exhibits into evidence must be
governed by the Federal Rules of Evidence at a later, appropriate time in the case.
2.

Mr. Farrell’s “Motion for Assistance with Service of Process”(filed October 28,

2015) (Doc. # 185) is DENIED as unnecessary.
3.

Mr. Farrell’s “Motion for Appointment of Coun[sel] . . . .”(filed October 29, 2015)

(Doc. # 187) is DENIED.
4.

Mailings to Mr. Farrell have been returned as undeliverable. (See Docs. # 182,

# 179). Mr. Farrell is reminded that it is his responsibility to update his current address in

2

each of his cases. See D.C.Colo.LAttR 5(c) (requiring that any change of address or other
contact information be filed with the court no later than five days after the change).
Dated at Denver, Colorado this 2nd day of November, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

s/Craig B. Shaffer
United States Magistrate Judge

3