Faircloth v. Corrections Corporation of America et al
MINUTE ORDER denying as moot 102 Motion to Stay; granting 104 Motion for Extension of Time to File Amended Complaint. Plaintiff shall file his amended complaint on or before 4/20/215. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 3/16/2015.(alowe)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-00464-REB-KLM
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA,
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
RICK RAEMISCH, Executive Direction of CDOC, in his individual and official capacities,
DAVE HENNINGER, CEO of CCA, in his individual and official capacities,
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Stay of Proceedings Due
to in Transit Unit and Petitioner Has No Access to Files, or Legal Material, or to Law
Library to Further Prosecute This Case at This Time [#102]1 (the “Stay Motion) and
Plaintiff’s Petition for Extension of Time to File Amendment of the Complaint and
Leave to File This Request Out of Time [#104] (the “Extension Motion”).
In the Stay Motion Plaintiff asks the Court to stay this case until he has access to a
law library. Stay Motion [#102] at 1. In the Extension Motion Plaintiff explains that he was
transferred to another facility on February 24, 2015 and has begun working on his amended
complaint. Extension Motion [#104] at 2. Plaintiff further notes that he anticipates being
transferred again, but does not provide specific information relating to this anticipated
transfer. Id. Plaintiff requests that the Court extend the March 4, 2015 deadline for him to
submit an amended complaint set in the Court’s February 11, 2015 Order [#101] to “April
20th, or as late as April 30th, 2015 . . . .” Extension Motion [#104] at 4. Plaintiff notes that
such an extension will “give [him] ample time to have it done, perhaps sooner.” Id.
The Court notes that this case was initiated on February 21, 2014. See generally
“[#102]” 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.
Complaint [#1]. To date there have been more than 100 filings in this case, including two
motions to dismiss [##30, 46]. In addition, Plaintiff has sought extensions in this case
numerous times [##42, 48, 69, 71]. On October 10, 2014, the Court extended Plaintiff’s
deadline to file his motion for leave to amend his complaint and noted that:
No further extension will be granted absent extraordinary
circumstances. For Plaintiff’s benefit, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s need
to spend time focusing on other legal matters does not constitute
Minute Order [#74] at 2 (emphasis in original). However, in its February 11, 2015 Order
[#101], the Court extended Plaintiff’s deadline to file his amended complaint to March 4,
2015. The Court has been very generous in this case, extending deadlines as needed.
However, a case must progress. This case was filed more than one year ago and the
Court and Defendants still do not know what claims Plaintiffs is bringing. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Stay Motion [#102] is DENIED as moot. Plaintiff
admits in the Extension Motion that he now has access to a law library and is working on
his amended complaint. Extension Motion [#104] at 2.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Extension Motion [#104] is GRANTED.2
Plaintiff shall file his amended complaint on or before April 20, 2015. This deadline will
not be extended further. As a litigant Plaintiff must comply with Court deadlines and
prosecute his case. Failure to meet this deadline may result in a recommendation
that this case be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute
and/or failure to comply with a Court Order.
Dated: March 16, 2015
The Court may rule on a pending motion at any time. D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d).
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?