Danielson-Grodin, et al v. Raemisch, et al
Filing
12
ORDER Directing Plaintiffs to Cure Deficiencies; 10 Motion for Variance Complaint from Local Rule is denied because non-prisoners are not prejudiced by this form and certain information requested on the Prisoner Complaint form is required to be provided by prisoners. 11 Motion for Service is denied as premature and unnecessary, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 10/14/14.(morti, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-02704-BNB
(The above civil action number must appear on all future papers
sent to the court in this action. Failure to include this number
may result in a delay in the consideration of your claims.)
MARY DANIELSON-GRODIN,
MATT LINCOLN,
JOHN DEMMING,
NATHAN YBANEZ,
SIMON SUE,
SAM LINCOLN,
ATORRUS RAINER,
GREG RIVAS,
DWIGHT HAZEL, and
PATRICK SUCHAIYA,
Plaintiffs,
v.
RICH RAEMISCH, In his Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Colorado
Department of Corrections (CDOC),
LOU ARCHULETA, In his Official Capacity as Director of Prisons for CDOC,
THE SCF MAIL ROOM,
THE SCF PUBLICATION REVIEW COMMITTEE,
BERNADETTE SCOTT, In her Official Capacity as Lieutenant of the SCF Mail Room
and in her Individual Capacity,
SCF MAIL ROOM EMPLOYEE “DJ,” In his/her Individual Capacity,
MICHELLE NYCZ-HALLIGAN, In her Official Capacity as a Major on the SCF
Publication Review Committee and in her Individual Capacity,
SCF MAIL ROOM EMPLOYEE “PDR,” In his/her Individual Capacity,
IRIS CHRISTIANS, In her Individual Capacity,
SCF MAIL ROOM EMPLOYEE “Z SMITH,” In his/her Individual Capacity,
UNKNOWN CDOC PUBLICATION REVIEW COMMITTEE,
UNKNOWN ADMINISTRATIVE HEAD,
RANDY OLGUIN, In his Individual Capacity,
PAMELA J. PLOUGHE, In her Individual Capacity,
BUENA VISTA CORRECTIONAL CENTER PUBLICATION REVIEW COMMITTEE,
WILLIAM BRUNELL, In his Individual Capacity,
ANGEL MEDINA, In his Individual Capacity,
SCF CORRECTIONAL OFFICER OCHOA, In her Individual Capacity,
SCF SERGEANT ROBERT HRADECKY, In his Individual Capacity,
ANDRIES PRINSLOO, In his Individual Capacity, and
JOHN CHAPDELAINE, In his Individual Capacity,
Defendants.
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFFS TO CURE DEFICIENCIES
On October 2, 2014, Plaintiffs submitted a Complaint, seven Prisoner’s Motion
and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a Motion for Variance
of Complaint From Local Rule, and a Motion for Service by United States Marshal. As
part of the Court’s review pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 8.1, the Court has determined
that the documents are deficient as described in this Order. Plaintiffs will be directed to
cure the following if they wish to pursue any claims in this Court in this action. Any
papers that Plaintiffs file in response to this Order must include the civil action number
on this Order.
28 U.S.C. § 1915 Motion and Affidavit:
(1)
X
(2)
(3)
X
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
X
(8)
(9)
(10)
is not submitted (Each plaintiff must submit their own § 1915 Motion and
Affidavit; Plaintiffs Matt Lincoln, John Demming, and Mary DanielsonGrodin must file their own § 1915 motions)
is missing affidavit
Plaintiffs Sam Lincoln, Dwight Hazel, Atorrus Rainer, Gregory Rivas,
Patrick Suchaiya, Simon Sue, and Nathan Ybanez have not submitted a
prisoner trust fund statement that covers the full 6-month period
immediately preceding the date of this filing
is missing certificate showing current balance in prison account
is missing required financial information
is missing authorization to calculate and disburse filing fee payments
is missing an original signature by the prisoner (Nathan Ybanez did not
sign or date his § 1915 motion and affidavit or sign the authorization to
withdraw funds from his account)
is not on proper form
names in caption do not match names in caption of complaint, petition or
habeas application
other:
2
Complaint, Petition or Application:
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
X
X
is not submitted
is not on proper form (Must use a Court-approved form used in filing
prisoner complaints; seven of ten plaintiffs are incarcerated)
is missing an original signature by Plaintiff Matt Lincoln
is missing page nos.
uses et al. instead of listing all parties in caption
names in caption do not match names in text
addresses must be provided for all defendants/respondents in “Section A.
Parties” of complaint, petition or habeas application
other:
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiffs cure the deficiencies designated above within thirty
days from the date of this Order. Any papers that Plaintiffs file in response to this
Order must include the civil action number on this Order. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall obtain a Prisoner Complaint form and
Nathan Ybanez shall obtain a Prisoner’s Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 form, (if incarcerated with the assistance of their case
manager or the facility’s legal assistant), along with the applicable instructions, at
www.cod.uscourts.gov. A Court-approved form must be used to cure deficiencies. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Mary Danielson-Grodin, Matt Lincoln, and
John Demming shall obtain a Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915 Court-approved form (form for nonprisoners) at www.cod.uscourts.gov.
A Court-approved form must be used to cure deficiencies. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiffs fail to cure the designated deficiencies
within thirty days from the date of this Order, the action will be dismissed without
further notice. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Variance of Complaint from Local
3
Rule, ECF No. 10, is denied because nonprisoners are not prejudiced by this form and
certain information requested on the Prisoner Complaint form is required to be provided
by prisoners. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Motion for Service, ECF No. 11, is denied as
premature and unnecessary.
DATED October 14, 2014, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge
4
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?