Banks v. Colorado Dept. of Corrections et al
MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 8/21/14. Motion to Amend/Alter Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)[,] 60(b) & 54 and/or Notice of Appeal [#31] is DENIED without prejudice. Motion Requesting a Ruling on Previous Motion Submitted on 6-11-14 ECF(24) & ECF(25) [#36] is DENIED as moot. (lgale)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-02599-KLM
TORREY V. BANKS,
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
A. MEDINA, Warden at FCF,
R. WAGNER, Assistant Warden at FCF,
STEPHANIE ENGLAR, FCF Mental Health Counselor,
JERRI SCOLLARD, Acting FCF Mental Health Supervisor,
C. SOARES, Assistant Warden at CSP,
CAPTAIN ARGUELLO, CSP Mail Room Supervisor,
C/O MALEBRANCHE, and
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend/Alter Under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 59(e)[,] 60(b) & 54 and/or Notice of Appeal [#31]1 (the “Motion to Amend”) and
Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting a Ruling on Previous Motion Submitted on 6-11-14
ECF(24) & ECF(25) [#36] (the “Motion For Ruling”). The Motion to Amend is difficult to
understand, but in it Plaintiff states that he “request[s] that this motion act as a request to
amend the complaint or as a notice of appeal, to preserve review.” Motion to Amend [#31]
at 2. Plaintiff also mentions Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 and 60. Id. at 1. It is unclear to the Court
whether Plaintiff would like to file an amended complaint or request reconsideration of the
Court’s Order to Dismiss in Part and to Draw Case to a Presiding Judge [#23] (the “Order”),
“[#34]” 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.
If Plaintiff, who proceeds in this matter pro se,2 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, and which includes the proposed 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.
Alternatively, if Plaintiff seeks to file a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60, seeking
reconsideration of the Order[#23], he must file a motion “supported by a recitation of legal
authority incorporated into the motion,” D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d), that makes clear which
portions of the Order he seeks reconsideration of and explains under which provision of
Rule 60(b) he seeks relief.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Amend [#31] is DENIED without
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion For Ruling [#36], which requests that
the Court enter an order regarding the Motion to Amend, is DENIED as moot.
Dated: August 21, 2014
As a voluntary pro se litigant, it is solely Plaintiff’s responsibility to ensure that he complies
with case deadlines, Court Orders, and applicable rules. See, e.g., Green v. Dorrell, 969 F.2d 915,
917 (10th Cir. 1992).
The Court may rule on pending motion at any time.
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?