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)

Download PDF
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

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?