Walker v. Hickenlooper et al
Filing
44
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 40 Motion Requesting an Order Directing Defendants to Re-file & Re-Serve their Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Extension of Time, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 9/04/2014.(slibi, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland
Civil Action No. 14-cv-01062-BNB
TYRONE WALKER,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, in his Individual Capacity,
BILL RITTER JR., in his Individual Capacity,
TOM CLEMENTS, in his Individual and Official Capacities,
ARISTEDES W. ZAVARAS, in his Individual and Official Capacities,
RICK RAEMISCH, in his Individual and Official Capacities,
KEVIN MILYARD, in his Individual and Official Capacities,
JAMES FALK, in his Individual and Official Capacities,
JOHN CHAPDELAIN #10277, in his Individual and Official Capacities,
JAMIE SOUCIE #12620, in her Individual and Official Capacities,
MARSHAL GRIFFITH #14298, in his Individual and Official Capacities,
JULIE FULLER #10068, in her Individual and Official Capacities,
ASTRIA LOMBARD #14539, in her Individual and Official Capacities, and
JANE DOE, in her Individual and Official Capacities,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter arises on the plaintiff’s Motion Requesting an Order Directing
Defendants to Re-file & Re-Serve their Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Extension of
Time [Doc. #40, filed 8/27/2014]. The Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN
PART.
The plaintiff is incarcerated at the Sterling Correctional Facility (“SCF”). He states that
he received the defendants’ motion to dismiss but did not receive Exhibits A, B, and C to the
motion. The plaintiff requests that the defendants be ordered to re-file the motion with the court
and “re-serve all interested parties, including the Plaintiff, with a complete copy of the Motion to
Dismiss.” The plaintiff further requests an extension of time to respond to the motion to dismiss.
The defendants respond that they served on the plaintiff the motion to dismiss and
Exhibits A, B, and C. On August 21, 2014, defense counsel was notified by an SCF officer that
the plaintiff stated he did not receive Exhibits A, B, or C. On that same day, defense counsel
mailed another copy of the exhibits via FedEx, and the exhibits were delivered to SCF on August
22, 2014.
The defendants have re-served Exhibits A, B, and C on the plaintiff. Therefore, his
motion to re-serve the exhibits is moot. The motion to dismiss does not need to be re-filed with
the court or re-served on any party. The plaintiff is granted until September 30, 2014, to respond
to the motion to dismiss.
Finally, I note that the plaintiff accuses the defendants of being incompetent and makes
immaterial and impertinent statements about the defendants and SCF staff. I will not tolerate
immaterial and impertinent statements or ad hominem attacks against the defendants.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
(1) The Motion [Doc. #40] is GRANTED to permit the plaintiff an extension to time
until September 30, 2014, to respond to the defendants’ motion to dismiss;
(2) The motion is DENIED insofar as it seeks an order directing the defendants to re-file
and re-serve their motion to dismiss; and
2
(3) The plaintiff shall cease filing papers containing immaterial and impertinent
statements or ad hominem attacks against defendants. Failure to comply with this order may
result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal of this case.
Dated September 4, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge
3
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?