Apodaca v. Lakewood Police Department et al

Filing 31

MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 4/30/15.Motion Requesting (Rule 4) US Marshals Complete Service of Process # 26 and Plaintiff's Motion Requesting Extension of Time Rule # 27 are DENIED AS MOOT.(lgale, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-00007-RM-KLM
JOSE M. APODACA,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF LAKEWOOD COLORADO (Municipality),
LAKEWOOD POLICE DEPARTMENT,
KEVIN PALLETA, (Chief of Police), in his individual and official capacities,
ZBIGNIEW RICHARD KOSIK, (Police Officer), in his individual and official capacities, and
ALICIA HARRIS, (Police Officer), in her individual and official capacities,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting (Rule 4) US
Marshals Complete Service of Process [#26]1 (the “First Motion”), Plaintiff’s Motion
Requesting Extension of Time Rule [#27] (the “Second Motion”), and Plaintiff’s untitled
letter dated April 22, 2015, which was filed on the docket on April 27, 2015 [#28] (the
“Letter”).
Collectively, the First Motion, Second Motion, and Letter express Plaintiff’s
uncertainty about service of process on Defendants. Specifically, the First Motion asks the
Court to direct the U.S. Marshal to effect service on Defendants. First Motion [#26] at 1.
The Second Motion requests an extension of the deadline for service of process set by
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. Second Motion [#27] at 2.
Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See Order Granting 28
U.S.C. § 1915 Motion [#5] at 1. At the time the Court entered that Order, the Court also
ordered that “the Clerk of the Court shall not issue process until further order of the Court,”
id. at 2, and reviewed the Complaint. Subsequently Plaintiff amended his Complaint twice

1

“[#26]” 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

[##7, 12]. On April 8, 2015, the Court entered its Order Drawing Case [#23] and this action
was assigned to the undersigned [#24]. On April 29, 2015, the Clerk of the Court filed a
Certificate of Service regarding service of the Second Amended Complaint [#12] and
Summonses on Defendants. As a result, the relief requested in the First Motion and
Second Motion is moot.
In the Letter, Plaintiff explains that he is uncertain if he must provide information to
the U.S. Marshal in order for service to be effected. As an initial matter, the Court notes
that pro se litigants must follow the same procedural rules that govern other litigants. The
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that parties to a civil litigation file motions when
they seek relief from the Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1) (“A request for a court order must
be made by motion.”). In addition, the Local Rules of this Court require that a motion “state
under which rule or statute it is filed and be supported by a recitation of legal authority
incorporated into the motion.” D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d). These rules allow for an orderly
progression in the litigation. Therefore, the Court does not consider letters or other
documents not titled as motions or attached to motions. As a one-time courtesy, the Court
is providing Plaintiff with this information. However, in the future, the Court will not respond
to letters submitted by Plaintiff. In addition, the concern expressed by Plaintiff in the Letter
is no longer necessary due to the Certificate of Service [#30] filed by the Clerk of the Court.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the First Motion [#26] and Second Motion [#27] are
DENIED as moot.
Dated: April 30, 2015

2