Faircloth v. Corrections Corporation of America et al

Filing 64

MINUTE ORDER granting 55 Motion to Correct; granting 56 Motion to Correct. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the paragraph that begins with the number three is STRICKEN from Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint [#52]. IT IS FURTHER O RDERED that the proposed Amended Complaint [#52-1] is modified to strike the second reference to Jefferson County Community Corrections Board in the caption and to add Lt. Ackers to the caption. ORDER granting 61 Motion for Extension of Time to F ile Response/Reply ; granting 62 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. The Moving Defendants shall respond to Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint [#52] and Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification Complaint Class Action [#53] on or before 9/19/2014, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 9/18/2014.(slibi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-00464-REB-KLM
JAMES FAIRCLOTH,
Plaintiff,
v.
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,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
______________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Correct Previous Motion
for Leave to File Amended Complaint [#55] (the “First Motion to Correct”), Plaintiff’s
Motion to Correct the List of Parties on Amended Complaint [#56] (the “Second Motion
to Correct”), Defendants Corrections Corporation of America’s and Damon Hininger’s
(incorrectly named as Dave Henninger) (collectively, the “Moving Defendants”) Motion for
Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended
Complaint [#61]1 (the “Defendants’ First Motion”), and the Moving Defendants’ Motion for
Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification Complaint
Class Action [#62] (the “Defendants’ Second Motion”).
On August 6, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File
Amended Complaint [#48]. However, the Court also warned Plaintiff as follows:
The Court reminds Plaintiff that pro se litigants must follow the same
procedural rules that govern other litigants. See Nielson v. Price, 17 F.3d
1276, 1277 (10th Cir. 1994). That includes meeting deadlines to respond to
pending motions. Plaintiff may not ignore such deadlines and then seek
1

“[#61]” 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.

1

extensions of time in order avoid the Court’s entry of an order granting a
dispositive motion such as the First MTD and the Second MTD. If Plaintiff
continues to fail to respond to dispositive motions, the Court will treat
those motions as unopposed and will rule on them without the benefit
of Plaintiff’s arguments in opposition to the motions.
Further, if Plaintiff files a motion seeking leave of the Court to file an
Amended Complaint, he must file a motion which complies with the federal
and local rules, namely, Fed. R. Civ. P. 15, and which includes the proposed
Amended Complaint as a document separate from the Motion. The Court
will not permit piecemeal adjudication of Plaintiff’s case, thus Plaintiff
must include all claims he seeks to bring and defendants he intends to
name in the proposed Amended Complaint. Accordingly, the Court will
not allow further amendment of Plaintiff’s claims once Plaintiff files his
anticipated motion to amend.
Minute Order [#50] at 2 (emphasis in original).
In the First Motion to Correct, Plaintiff asks the Court to strike “paragraph 3" from
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint [#52] because it was “inadvertently
left in” and “speaks of [an] extension of time . . . for leave to file [an] amended complaint.”
First Motion to Correct [#55] at 1. The Court agrees that the paragraph that begins with the
number three relates to an extension of time and is unrelated to the relief sought in
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint [#52]. The Court, therefore, agrees
that the paragraph should be stricken.
In the Second Motion to Correct, Plaintiff asks the Court to further modify his
proposed Amended Complaint [#52-1], to correct clerical errors. Notably, the proposed
Amended Complaint purports to add 222 new defendants to a case that only originally
named four Defendants. Specifically, Plaintiff states that one proposed defendant, the
Jefferson County Community Corrections Board, is erroneously named twice in the caption
and asks the Court to strike the second reference. Second Motion to Correct [#56] at 1.
Plaintiff also asks the Court to add “LT. ACKERS” to the caption, arguing that this proposed
defendant is included in the section of the proposed Amended Complaint titled “Parties”
and was erroneously excluded from the caption. Id. Both of these issues are clerical
errors, not substantive changes. Accordingly, the Court will make these two changes.
However, Plaintiff is again reminded, as he was previously warned by the Court, the Court
will not allow further amendment of Plaintiff’s claims.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the First Motion to Correct [#55] and the Second

2

As noted below, one of the newly named defendants is named twice. The Court only
counts the first reference for purposes of this Minute Order.

2

Motion to Correct [#56] are GRANTED.3 Accordingly,
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the paragraph that begins with the number three
is STRICKEN from Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint [#52].
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the proposed Amended Complaint [#52-1] is
modified to strike the second reference to Jefferson County Community Corrections Board
in the caption and to add “Lt. Ackers” to the caption.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ First Motion [#61] and Defendants’
Second Motion [#62] are GRANTED. The Moving Defendants shall respond to Plaintiff’s
Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint [#52] and Plaintiff’s Motion for Class
Certification Complaint Class Action [#53] on or before September 19, 2014.
Dated: September 18, 2014

3

The Court may rule on a pending motion at any time. D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d).

3