Broadus v. DeCesaro et al
MINUTE ORDER; Plaintiff's first [Motion for] Temporary Restraining Order Pursuant to Fed. R. CV. P. Rule 65 49 is DENIED as moot. Defendant shall file a Response to the Second Motion 73 in accordance with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d), by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 5/2/16.(morti, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-00182-WJM-KLM
JOHN MICHAEL BROADUS,
CHAPDELAIN, Associate Warden,
CHP, Clinical Health Provider,
EVA LITTLE, Lieutenant,
SWINGLE, Lieutenant, and
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s first [Motion for] Temporary
Restraining Order Pursuant to Fed. R. CV. P. Rule 65 [#49] (the “First Motion”) and on
Plaintiff’s second [Motion for] Temporary Restraining Order Pursuant to Fed. R. CV.
P. Rule 65 [#73] (the “Second Motion”). In the Response to the First Motion [#49],
Defendants noted that the relief requested by Plaintiff was not clearly stated: “While
unclear, Plaintiff appears to be seeking a Temporary Restraining Order removing his STG
label, placing him in a cell to his liking, and limiting purported retaliation.” [#65] at 2. The
Second Motion [#73] appears to be virtually identical to the First Motion [#49], except that
Plaintiff clarifies his requested relief as follows: “Plaintiff is specifically requesting to be
moved from the Defendants in this civil case and relocated to a facility of equal custody
rating. Plaintiff is not attempting to get moved to a facility of his choice. Any facility of
Plaintiff’s current custody rating (medium) will suffice. It is within this Court’s authority to
order the Defendants to temporarily separate themselves by moving Plaintiff until this
matter is concluded.” [#73] at 7.
Plaintiff proceeds as a pro se litigant.1 Given the disparity between Defendants’
understanding of Plaintiff’s requested relief and Plaintiff’s clarification of his requested relief,
and given that the First Motion and the Second Motion are virtually identical aside from this
important difference, the Court finds that the Second Motion should be construed as an
amended request for temporary restraining order, as opposed to a reply in support of the
First Motion. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the First Motion [#49] is DENIED as moot.
Defendants shall file a Response to the Second Motion [#73] in accordance with
Dated: May 2, 2016
Attorneys from the law firm of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP have been
selected as pro bono counsel for Plaintiff. They have not yet entered an appearance on his behalf,
and the time for them to do so has not yet expired. See [#66].
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?