Mathison v. USA et al

Filing 53

MINUTE ORDER denying 47 Motion for Order; denying 49 Motion to Intervene; granting 50 Motion for Leave to Appear telephone, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 5/11/2015.(tscha, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-03345-RM-KLM
EUGENE H. MATHISON,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
CHRISTOPHER WILSON, D.O.,
RONALD CAMACHO, P.A., M.L.P.,
MARK KELLAR, R.N., HEALTH SERVICES ADMIN.,
D. ALLRED, D.O., CLINICAL DIRECTOR,
GEORGE SANTINI, M.D., and
FIVE JOHN/JANE DOES,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 7
for the Court to Order Plaintiff to Reply to Defendants’ Answer [#47]1 (the “Reply
Motion”); Plaintiff’s Motion Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(1)(A) and (B) to Allow
Joinder of Party Harmed Arising Out of the Same Occurance [sic] [#49] (the “Joinder
Motion”); and Plaintiff’s Motion to Appear by Telephone for July 2, 2015 Scheduling
Conference [#50] (the “Appearance Motion”). As an initial matter, none of the motions
comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(a), which requires that
Before filing a motion, counsel for the moving party or an unrepresented party
shall confer or make reasonable good faith efforts to confer with any opposing
counsel or unrepresented party to resolve any disputed matter. The moving
party shall describe in the motion, or in a certificate attached to the motion, the
specific efforts to fulfill this duty.

1

“[#47]” 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.

1

D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(a). 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). While
D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(b)(1) excepts motions filed in cases involving unrepresented
prisoners, Plaintiff was not a prisoner at any time during this litigation. As noted in the
Complaint, he was a prisoner from November 7, 2006 until January 8, 2013. Compl. [#1]
¶ 5. As a result, none of the exceptions listed in D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(b) apply to the
Motions. Further, Plaintiff previously filed his Unopposed Motion to Amend Plaintiff’s
Certificate of Review [#18] which shows that he is aware of this rule and understands that
it applies to him. The Court, therefore, denies without prejudice the Joinder Motion [#49].
In the interest of expedience, the Court addresses the remaining two motions as discussed
below.
In the Reply Motion, Plaintiff notes that two Answers have been filed in this case.
Reply Motion [#47] at 1. One was filed on behalf of Defendant United States of America.
See generally United States’ Answer [#44]. The second was filed on behalf of Defendants
Wilson, Camacho, Kellar, Allred, and Santini. See generally Defendants Wilson, Camacho,
Kellar, Allred, and Santini’s Answer to Plaintiff’s Prisoner Complaint [#45]. As a result,
Plaintiff requests permission to “file a reply to Mr. Pestal’s Answer . . . .” Reply Motion [#47]
at 1. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not allow for a response to an Answer to be
filed. Further, there is nothing inappropriate about different Defendants filing separate
answers, even if they are represented by the same attorney. Accordingly, because there
is no legal basis for the requested relief, the Reply Motion [#47] is denied.
In the Appearance Motion [#50], Plaintiff requests permission to appear at the July
2, 2015 Scheduling Conference by telephone. Appearance Motion [#50] at 1. Plaintiff
currently resides in South Dakota and, as noted in the Appearance Motion, “he has limited
funds for travel.” Id. The Court finds this to be good cause to allow Plaintiff to appear at
the Scheduling Conference by telephone. Accordingly, the Court grants the Appearance
Motion [#50].
For the reasons stated above,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Joinder Motion [#49] is DENIED without
prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Reply Motion [#47] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Appearance Motion [#50] is GRANTED.
Plaintiff may appear by telephone at the Scheduling Conference on July 2, 2015 at 11:00
a.m. by dialing the Court at 303-335-2770. If any other parties are granted leave to appear

2

telephonically, these parties must initiate a conference call between themselves and
Plaintiff before dialing the Court.
Dated: May 11, 2015

3