Guion v. Spurlock et al

Filing 95

MINUTE ORDER denying 82 Motion for Court to Order C.D.O.C. Defendants to Produce all Requested Documents by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 2/3/2015.(mdave) Modified on 2/4/2015 to edit text (mdave ).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-00391-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 February 3, 2015.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Court to Order C.D.O.C. Defendants to Produce all Requested
Documents Supporting Plaintiff [filed December 18, 2014; docket #82] is denied.
First, Plaintiff requests that the Court order Defendants to produce any and all evidence
“Plaintiff can think to request that will help the Plaintiff [prove] each claim[.]” This request is
overly broad and does not “state with particularity the grounds for seeking the order,” as required
by Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1)(B).
Furthermore, to the extent Plaintiff moves to compel the production of discovery, Plaintiff
must establish that he has served Defendants with the discovery request before seeking relief from
the Court. Plaintiff may do so by filing discovery requests pursuant to D.C. Colo. LCivR 5.3(b)
which permits an unrepresented prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis to file written discovery
requests electronically.
Finally, Plaintiff’s attached letter suggests that he seeks reconsideration of this Court’s
Report and Recommendation to grant in part and deny in part the Partial Motion to Dismiss. The
District Court’s adoption of the Recommendation renders Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration
moot. (See docket #89.)