Woodstock v. Larimer County Sheriff et al

Filing 133

ORDER Denying as moot 131 plaintiffs Motion for Stay of Summary Judgment Proceedings Pending Adequate Limited Discovery in the Case, by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 2/4/2016.(evana, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 15-cv-00041-REB-KMT
JONATHAN (LANE) WOODSTOCK,
Plaintiff,
v.
LT. S. SHAFFER,
CHAPLAIN BRET RICKARD,
CAPTAIN PALMER, and
S. JONES,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR STAY OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROCEEDINGS
PENDING ADEQUATE LIMITED DISCOVERY IN THE CASE
Blackburn, J.
The matter before me is plaintiff’s Motion for Stay of Summary Judgment
Proceedings Pending Adequate Limited Discovery in the Case [#131],1 filed
February 3, 2016. By this motion, plaintiff asks the court to stay further consideration of
Defendants Shaffer and Palmer’s Motion For Summary Judgment [#40], filed May
28, 2015, so that he may conduct discovery relevant to his claims against these
defendants.
However, on January 14, 2016, I entered my Order Overruling Objections to
and Adopting Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#124], in which

1
“[#131]” 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 order.

I approved and adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation as to the disposition of
defendants Shaffer and Palmer’s motion. A stay of that ruling therefore is a temporal
impossibility. Moreover, my order left intact certain of plaintiff’s claims against these
defendants. (See id. ¶ 3.a. at 5.) As to those claims, therefore, discovery may
continue. (See Minute Order [#112], filed January 5, 2016 (extending discovery
deadline to May 5, 2016).)
The majority of the remaining claims were dismissed because, regardless of the
facts alleged, there is no private right of action for violation of the statute of
constitutional provision on which plaintiff purported to rely. These claims are legally
insupportable, and no further discovery will make them viable.
The sole exception was plaintiff’s section 1983 claims against these defendants,
which were dismissed for failure to allege facts sufficient to show their personal
participation in the alleged constitutional violations. Although it strikes the court as
highly unlikely, if ongoing discovery should reveal additional facts previously unknown to
plaintiff which are relevant to this determination, he may be able to seek leave to amend
his complaint, provided, of course, so far past the deadline for amendment of the
pleadings that he can satisfy the standards of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16 and
15. See Petekeiwicz v. Stembel, 2015 WL 1740386 at *4 (D. Colo. Apr. 14, 2015);
Colorado Visionary Academy v. Medtronic, Inc., 194 F.R.D. 684, 688 (D.
Colo. 2000).2

2

While not intending to prejudge the merits of any such motion, I nevertheless note that it
appears plaintiff would have an uphill battle should he seek leave to amend. Rule 16 requires a showing
of “good cause” to amend the extant Scheduling Order, which in turn requires plaintiff to "show that [he]
has been diligent in attempting to meet the deadlines, which means [he] must provide an adequate

2

For all these reasons, plaintiff’s motion is moot, and will be denied on that basis.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion for Stay of Summary
Judgment Proceedings Pending Adequate Limited Discovery in the Case [#131],
filed February 3, 2016, is denied as moot.
Dated February 4, 2016, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

explanation for any delay." Minter v. Prime Equipment Co., 451 F.3d 1196, 1205 n.4 (10th Cir. 2006).
The procedural history of this case makes this court dubious that plaintiff can meet that burden. Plaintiff
never responded to Messrs. Palmer and Shaffer’s dispositive motion. Nearly three weeks after the
magistrate judge issued her recommendation on the motion, plaintiff filed a motion seeking an extension
of time to respond, in which he never suggested additional discovery was needed. (See Motion [#84],
filed October 13, 2015.) Although the magistrate judge promptly granted plaintiff’s motion (see Minute
Order [#87], filed October 14, 2015), he did not file a response to the summary judgment motion.
Instead, on October 13, 2015), he filed an improper interlocutory appeal of the recommendation ([#85],
again failing to mention any need for further discovery. In addition, and only two days after the extended
deadline for his summary judgment response, plaintiff filed a response to Messrs. Palmer and Shaffer’s
objection to the magistrate judge’s recommendation ([#97], filed October 4, 2015), again giving no
indication that he thought discovery on the matter was inadequate. Under these circumstances, plaintiff’s
diligence is questionable at best.

3