Guion v. Spurlock et al

Filing 18

MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 4 Plaintiff's Motion for Civil Order of Protection, construed by the Court as a motion for temporary restraining order, by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 5/27/2014. (eseam)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-00391-MEH
CURTIS GUION,
Plaintiff,
v.
SPURLOCK, Correctional Officer, in his official and individual capacities,
GILBERT, Correctional Officer, in his official and individual capacities,
CUTCHER, Sergeant, in his official and individual capacities,
GROOMS, Correctional Officer, in his official and individual capacities,
Z. MAHER, Correctional Officer, in his official and individual capacities,
CASADY, Correctional Officer, in his official and individual capacities,
WHITE, Correctional Officer, in his official and individual capacities,
TRUJILLO, Correctional Officer, in his official and individual capacities,
BARBERO, Captain, in his official and individual capacities,
TRAVIS TRANI, Warden, in his official and individual capacities,
BROWN, Correctional Officer, in his official and individual capacities,
P. ARCHULETA, 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,
D. RAYMOND, Sergeant, 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,
J.R. ADAMS, 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 May 27, 2014.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Civil Order of Protection, construed by the Court as a motion for
temporary restraining order [filed February 11, 2014; docket #4] is denied without prejudice. The
motion was filed contemporaneously with the original complaint in this action, which has been since
amended and substantially modified. First, Plaintiff was ordered to, and filed, an Amended
Complaint on April 10, 2014. Then, on initial review of the Amended Complaint, Senior Judge
Babcock dismissed several claims and Defendants; accordingly, the pleading on which the present

motion relies has been substantially modified and superceded. Therefore, if the Plaintiff wishes to
re-file his motion, he must do so based only on the Amended Complaint as it has been modified by
the Court.

2