Mallett v. Simpler et al

Filing 66

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 64 Motion to Amend Court-Imposed Sanctions. By Judge Christine M. Arguello on 12/14/2017. (athom, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 14-cv-02323-CMA-MJW
DAWANE ARTHUR MALLETT,
Plaintiff,
v.
J. MUNOZ, Correctional Officer,
Defendant.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND
COURT-IMPOSED SANCTIONS
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Court-Imposed
Sanctions Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c). (Doc. # 64.)
On May 26, 2015, this Court entered final judgment against Plaintiff and imposed
sanctions pursuant to Rule 11. (Doc. ## 59, 60.) The sanctions state that Plaintiff “shall
not file in this Court any new civil actions that challenge disciplinary proceedings or
attempt to raise claims regarding conditions of confinement, unless represented by
a licensed attorney . . . or unless he has obtained permission from the court to proceed
pro se.” (Id. at 3) (emphasis added). See Ketchum v. Crus, 775 F. Supp. 1399, 1403
(D. Colo. 1991) (“Injunctions are proper where, as here, the litigant’s abusive litigation
history is properly set forth”); State of Colo. ex rel. Colo. Judicial Dep’t v. Fleming, 726
F. Supp. 1216, 1221 (D. Colo. 1989).

Plaintiff now moves to amend these sanctions, asking the Court to:
1. Order the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) to authorize Plaintiff “to deposit
funds into the court registry”;
2. Order the BOP to provide Plaintiff with “300 minutes of legal phone calls each
week”;
3. Order the BOP to provide Plaintiff with “3 legal writting [sic] tablets each week,
and 1 box of 50 legal envelopes each week’; and
4. “[T]ake notice” of Plaintiff’s argument as to how the BOP’s policies on writing
materials, postage, and envelopes are “effectively dening [sic] [him] access to the
courts.”
(Doc. # 64 at 3–4.) While he styles this a motion to amend the sanctions, Plaintiff is
actually challenging the conditions of his confinement. See Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S.
817, 824–25 (1977) (“It is indisputable that indigent inmates must be provided at state
expense with paper and pen to draft legal documents . . ., and with stamps to mail
them.”)
To challenge the conditions of his confinement, Plaintiff must first exhaust all
administrative remedies. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Cleveland v. Harvanek, 607 F. App’x
770, 772 (10th Cir. 2015). Only after completing the administrative grievance process
may Plaintiff bring suit with respect to prison conditions. Id. And in light of the
sanctions, Plaintiff may only bring suit if he is represented by a licensed attorney or has
permission from the Court to proceed pro se. (Doc. # 59 at 3.) Plaintiff may not attempt
to circumvent this process by, for example, filing a motion to amend his sanctions.
Because Plaintiff’s Motion challenges the conditions of his confinement, Plaintiff’s
Motion to Amend Court-Imposed Sanctions (Doc. # 64) is DENIED.

2

DATED: December 14, 2017

BY THE COURT:

_______________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge

3