Duncan v. Ritter Jr. et al

Filing 42

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 6/13/14. The Motion to Show Cause 36 is DENIED; The Request for Copies 38 is DENIED; The Motion to Stay 39 is DENIED as moot; and No discovery may occur until a scheduling order is entered. (bsimm, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland
Civil Action No. 14-cv-00301-BNB
JAMES ROGER DUNCAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
BILL RITTER, JR., ex-governor,
JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, governor,
RICK RAEMISCH, executive director,
WARDEN MILYARD,
WARDEN FALK, and
CASE MANAGER LUECK,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter is before me on the following:
(1)

Plaintiff’s Motion to Show Cause [Doc. # 36, filed 5/20/2014];

(2)

Plaintiff’s Letter [Doc. # 38, filed 5/20/2014] requesting that the Clerk of the

Court provide copies of motions (the “Request for Copies”); and
(3)

Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery and Vacate Conference Set for June

13, 2014, Pending Resolution of Qualified Immunity [Doc. # 39, filed 6/5/2014] (the “Motion
to Stay”).
The Motion to Show Cause [Doc. # 36] recites facts concerning the plaintiff’s alleged
indigence, but it does not seek any relief. It is denied.
The Request for Copies [Doc. # 38] seeks an order requiring the Clerk of the Court to
“make copy of the ‘two’ (2) motion to show cause.” Id. The plaintiff does not specify why he

needs the copies, other than to say that he is indigent and the prison “will not make more than
one copy of any court order or any motion I put before the courts.” Id. The Request for Copies
[Doc. # 38] is denied.
The Motion to Stay [Doc. # 39] seeks an order vacating a status conference set for this
morning and a stay of discovery pending the determination of the defendants’ motion to dismiss
based on qualified immunity. The June 13 status conference was set in order to cause the parties
to comply with the requirements of Part II.C of the Pilot Program to Implement the Direct
Assignment of Civil Cases to Full Time Magistrate Judges, which provides that “[f]iling of the
Consent Form is mandatory, indicating either the unanimous consent of the parties or that
consent has been declined.” The status conference occurred as scheduled but, unfortunately, the
plaintiff failed to contact the court by telephone as ordered, Minute Order [Doc. # 34], so I was
unable to address the Consent Form issue. Instead, I will simply wait to see whether the Consent
Form is filed within the 45 day period provided for in Part II.C(2) of the Pilot Program and
proceed based on what occurs. Nor is it necessary to stay discovery because the matter has not
been set for a scheduling conference. Consequently, the Motion to Stay [Doc. # 39] is denied as
moot.
IT IS ORDERED:
(1)

The Motion to Show Cause [Doc. # 36] is DENIED;

(2)

The Request for Copies [Doc. # 38] is DENIED;

(3)

The Motion to Stay [Doc. # 39] is DENIED as moot; and

(4)

No discovery may occur until a scheduling order is entered.

2

Dated June 13, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge

3