Guion v. Spurlock et al

Filing 115

ORDER denying 113 Motion for Order by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 3/18/2015.(mdave )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-00391-LTB-MEH
CURTIS GUION,
Plaintiff,
v.
BROWN, Correctional Officer, in his official and individual capacities,
MONTOYA, Correctional Officer, in his official and individual capacities,
MORRIS, in his official and individual capacities,
BENSKO, Correctional Officer, in his official and individual capacities,
S. FOSTER, Associate Warden, in his official and individual capacities,
SOLANO, Correctional Officer, in his official and individual capacities,
BUTERO, Sergeant, in his official and individual capacities, and
MAHONEY, Correctional Officer, in his official and individual capacities,
Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on March 18, 2015.
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion Requesting (Witness Foundation)” [filed March 16,
2015; docket #113]. Plaintiff seeks “an alternative source of communication via (court appointed
cell phone) as a means to keep the integrity of this case uncompromised [sic] and to ensure a level
playing field within these proceedings.” This request is vague, indecipherable and not supported
by any rule or law. To the extent the Plaintiff asks that the Court provide him a cell phone, the Court
has no authority nor means by which to provide cell phones and service to parties who appear before
the Court. Accordingly, the motion is denied.
The Court reminds the Plaintiff that “[a] verbose, redundant, ungrammatical, or unintelligible
motion, response, or reply may be stricken or returned for revision, and its filing may be grounds
for sanctions.” D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1(i).