Custard v. Allred et al

Filing 306

ORDER That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge 262 , filed January 13, 2016, is approved and adopted as an order of this court; That the Pltfs Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings In Pltfs Favor On Claim 8 169 filed May 15, 2015, is denied; That the plaintiffs motion for injunctive relief 187 filed July 8, 2015, is denied; and That the Pltfs Renewed motion for Injunctive Relief In Reply To Deft Response to Pltfs Motion for Injunctive Relief Doc 200 204 filed August 21, 2015, is denied. Signed by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 3/8/2016.(cmira)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 13-cv-02296-REB-CBS
BOB CUSTARD,
Plaintiff,
v.
DAVID ALLRED,
YVETTE BROUILLET-FETTERHOFF,
BUREAU OF PRISONS,
CHAVEZ,
ENCARANANZE,
FIEF,
ANDREW FENLON,
B. KASDON,
KOCH-COULTER,
PATRICIA RANGEL,
PAUL ZOHN, and
ZONNO,
Defendants.

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO AND ADOPTING
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Blackburn, J.
The matters before me are (1) the Pltf’s Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings In Pltf’s Favor On Claim 8 [#169]1 filed May 15, 2015; (2) the plaintiff’s
motion for injunctive relief [#187] filed July 8, 2015; (3) the Pltf’s Renewed motion for
Injunctive Relief In Reply To Deft “Response to Pltf’s Motion for Injunctive Relief”
Doc 200 [#204] filed August 21, 2015; and (4) the Recommendation of United States
1

“[#169]” 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 order.

Magistrate Judge [#262], filed January 13, 2016. The recommendation was delivered
orally from the bench. A transcript of the hearing at which the recommendation was
delivered is docketed as [#273]. A copy of the transcript was provided to the parties.
The plaintiff filed objections [#286], and the defendants filed a response [#300]. I
overrule the objections and adopt the recommendation.
The plaintiff is proceeding pro se. Thus, I have construed his pleadings more
liberally and held them to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Andrews v. Heaton, 483
F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th Cir. 2007); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991)
(citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972)).
As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), I have reviewed de novo all portions of the
recommendation to which the plaintiff objects. I have considered carefully the
recommendation, objections, and applicable case law, as well as the arguments raised,
authorities cited, and evidence presented by the parties.
As noted by the magistrate judge, the motion for judgment on the pleadings
[#169] concerns a claim which has been dismissed. In that context, judgment on the
pleadings is not appropriate. The two motions for injunctive relief [#187 & #204]
concern copying of legal documents of the plaintiff by prison officials. The magistrate
judge recommends that both motions be denied. The magistrate judge notes that relief
is sought against Mr. Ceseno, a person who is not a party to this case. Further, the
magistrate judge found that neither motion sets forth sufficient factual allegations to
warrant injunctive relief. Finally, the motions seek relief for alleged past wrongs rather

2

than imminent future harm. After de novo review, I concur with the findings and
conclusions of the magistrate judge. The objections [#286] of the plaintiff do not include
any meritorious objections to the dispositions recommended by the magistrate judge.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#262], filed
January 13, 2016, is approved and adopted as an order of this court;
2. That the Pltf’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings In Pltf’s Favor On
Claim 8 [#169] filed May 15, 2015, is denied;
3. That the plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief [#187] filed July 8, 2015, is
denied; and
4. That the Pltf’s Renewed motion for Injunctive Relief In Reply To Deft
“Response to Pltf’s Motion for Injunctive Relief” Doc 200 [#204] filed August 21,
2015, is denied.
Dated March 8, 2016, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

3