Adams v. Hines

Filing 40

MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 1/6/15. Motion to Subpeana [sic] Evidence [#33] is DENIED.(lgale, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-01445-RM-KLM
CYRIL ADAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.
OFFICER HINES,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
______________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Subpeana [sic] Evidence
[#33]1 (the “Motion”). In the Motion, Plaintiff states: “I motion to supeana [sic] photographs,
and anatomical reports” from “HRRMC, 550 Rainboa Dr., Salida, CO.” Motion [#33] at 1.
On August 21, 2014, the Court denied two similar motions explaining:
Plaintiff, who proceeds in this matter pro se2, is advised to consult the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this Court. . . . [I]n
this case discovery has not commenced. Plaintiff filed his Second Amended
Complaint on July 16, 2014 [#20] and Defendant filed his Motion to Dismiss
Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) [#24] (the “Motion to
Dismiss”) in response. If any claims remain after resolution of the Motion to
Dismiss, the Court will schedule a Scheduling Conference to set deadlines
for the parties to exchange information in accordance with the applicable
rules. If Plaintiff would like to subpoena documents from a third party, he
must do so in accordance with the applicable rules.

1

“[#33]” 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.
2

The Court must liberally construe pro se filings; however, pro se status does not excuse
the obligation of any litigant to comply with the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.
See Green v. Dorrell, 969 F.2d 915, 917 (10th Cir. 1992); see also Nielsen v. Price, 17 F.3d 1276,
1277 (10th Cir. 1994). (footnote in original).

1

Minute Order [#28] at 1-2. For the reasons stated in the Court’s August 21, 2014 Minute
Order [#28],
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#33] is DENIED.
Dated: January 6, 2015

2