Bruce v. Federal Bureau of Prisons et al

Filing 47

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang on 5/4/15. Plaintiff's Motion to Stay 38 is GRANTED; This action is STAYED pending the outcome of the competency hearing in Criminal Case No. 14-cr-00480; Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counse l 35 is DENIED; Plaintiff's Emergency Motion 40 is DENIED. Counsel for Defendants is directed to file a Status Report no later than ten days after Judge Daniel's ruling on competency or other order determining Mr. Bruce's competency. All current deadlines are VACATED. (bsimm, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-03232-RM-NYW
ANTOINE BRUCE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHARLES ALVAREZ,
R. GICONI, and
J. GARNER,
Defendants.

ORDER
Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang
This civil action is before the court on the Motion for Appointment of Counsel filed on
April 1, 2015 [#35],1 the Motion to Stay filed by Plaintiff Antoine Bruce (“Plaintiff” or “Mr.
Bruce”) on April 13, 2015 [#38], and the Emergency Motion2 filed on April 20, 2015 [#40],
which were referred to this Magistrate Judge for consideration and disposition pursuant to the
Order Referring Case entered on February 20, 2015 [#26] and the Memoranda dated April 1,
2015 [#36], April 13, 2015 [#39], and April 21, 2015 [#41]. In the Motion to Stay, Mr. Bruce
requests that the court stay the pending action until the Motion for Appointment of Counsel
[#35] is determined or until his competency is decided at an upcoming hearing. Defendants take
no position with respect to the stay, except to state that they believe disposition of their pending
1

The court notes that Mr. Bruce has already filed one Motion for Appointment of Counsel in this
case, which was denied. [#17, #18].
2
Other than the request for appointment of counsel, Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion does not
appear to seek any specific relief that is appropriately considered by this court. [#40].

Motion for Reconsideration related to whether Mr. Bruce may proceed in forma pauperis should
be determined, regardless of whether the remainder of the case is stayed. [#46]. District Judge
Daniel recently ordered a competency hearing for Mr. Bruce in his pending criminal action,
Criminal Case No. 14-cr-00480-WYD. [#43-1].
This court held a status conference with Mr. Bruce and counsel for Defendants on April
28, 2015. During the status conference, the court inquired as to the timing of the competency
evaluation and subsequent hearing. Based on representations of Defendants’ counsel, it appears
that the timing of such competency hearing will be based, in part, on the availability of bed space
at an appropriate Federal Medical Center. After Mr. Bruce’s transfer and evaluation, Judge
Daniel will then conduct a competency hearing [#43-1 at 4].
Rule 17(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “a minor or an
incompetent person who does not have a duly appointed representative may sue by a next of
friend or by a guardian ad litem. The court must appoint a guardian ad litem – or issue another
appropriate order – to protect a minor or incompetent person who is unrepresented in an action.”
While the court understands that Defendants are motivated to have their Motion for
Reconsideration adjudicated, given the concerns regarding Mr. Bruce’s competency, his ability
to represent himself in this action, and the fact that Judge Daniel has already ordered a
competency evaluation, this court finds that the most prudent course of action is to stay the
consideration of Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration pending Mr. Bruce’s competency
evaluation and the subsequent determination of competency.
Therefore, IT IS ORDERED:
(1) Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay [#38] IS GRANTED;

2

(2) This action is STAYED pending the outcome of Plaintiff’s competency hearing in
Criminal Case No. 14-cr-00480;
(3) Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel [#35] is DENIED, with leave to refile
only upon facts that were not presented in Plaintiff’s original “‘Emergency Motion’
Motion for Expedited Ruling and Appointed Counsel”;
(4) Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion [#40] is DENIED, as it sets forth no discernible request
for relief that is within this court’s jurisdiction except a request for appointment of
counsel;
(5) Counsel for Defendants is directed to file a Status Report no later than ten (10) days
after Judge Daniel’s ruling on competency in Criminal Case No. 14-cr-00480 or other
evaluation and/or order determining Mr. Bruce’s competency, whichever is earlier;
and
(6) All current deadlines in the case are VACATED, including the deadline ordering
Plaintiff to Show Cause, to be reset once the stay is lifted.

DATED: May 4, 2015

BY THE COURT:

s/ Nina Y. Wang
United States Magistrate Judge

3