v. Bronstein et al

Filing 10

ORDER denying 8 "Motion to Void the Time Limit Ordered by Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher to 'Cure' an Alleged Deficiency in My Complaint," and granting in part and denying in part 9 "Designation of Record and Request for Clarification of the Date on Which I am Required to File my 'Cured' Complaint in this Case," by Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher on 6/23/15.(dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-827-GPG

BYRON R. BRONSTEIN, Plaintiff
v.
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant

ORDER

On June 1, 2015, Plaintiff Byron R. Bronstein filed a “Motion to Void the Time
Limit Ordered by Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher to ‘Cure’ an Alleged Deficiency
in My Complaint.” (ECF No. 8). At the top of the motion, there is a handwritten note:
“Corrected version of my motion, previously filed.” (Id.) His previously filed “Motion to
Void the Time Limit Ordered by Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher to ‘Cure’ an
Alleged Deficiency in My Complaint” was filed on May 22, 2015. (ECF No. 6). On May
26, 2015, the Court granted the previously filed motion, construing it as a Motion for
Extension of Time, and allowing the Plaintiff an additional thirty days from the date of
the Order to cure the designated deficiencies. (ECF No. 7 at 5). Therefore, Plaintiff’s
repetitive “Motion to Void the Time Limit Ordered by Magistrate Judge Gordon P.
Gallagher to ‘Cure’ an Alleged Deficiency in My Complaint” (ECF No. 8) is DENIED.
On June 19, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion titled “Designation of Record and
Request for Clarification of the Date on Which I am Required to File my ‘Cured’
Complaint in this Case.” (ECF No. 9). In this motion, Plaintiff states that the Court’s

Order granting him an extension of time to cure the deficiencies in his Complaint was
dated May 26, 2015, but the envelope was postmarked May 27, 2015, and was not
received by him until Monday, May 29, 2015. (Id.) Therefore, Plaintiff requests that the
Court give him until Monday, June 29, 2015 to file his cured complaint. (Id.). The
Court’s Order granting Plaintiff an extension of time was signed on May 26, 2015 and
allowed Plaintiff thirty days from that date to file a new complaint. If there was an
unusually long delay in the Order reaching the Plaintiff, he might be entitled to an
additional extension of time; however, he received the Order in a timely manner, just
three days after it was signed. (Id.) Therefore, based on the Court’s Order, the Plaintiff
had thirty days from May 26, 2015, to cure the deficiencies in his Complaint, which is
Thursday, June 25, 2015. However, based on Plaintiff’s confusion regarding the dates,
and in an abundance of caution to allow the pro se Plaintiff an opportunity to submit his
claims, the Court will extend the deadline one last time and allow the Plaintiff a few
additional days, until Monday, June 29, 2015, to cure the designated deficiencies in his
complaint, as noted in the Court’s April 23, 2015 Order.
Additionally, in his motion titled “Designation of Record and Request for
Clarification of the Date on Which I am Required to File my ‘Cured’ Complaint in this
Case,” Plaintiff argues that Judge Gallagher did not sign the Order granting him an
extension of time and, therefore, it is not legal. (ECF No. 9 at 2). According to Plaintiff
the thirty day time limit will not begin to run until the date on which Judge Gallagher
signs the Order. (Id. at 2). However, the May 26, 2015 Order was signed by Judge
Gallagher with an /s signature and electronically filed. (ECF No. 7). Under the ECF
Procedures (Civil Cases) Local Rule 4.14(b), a court issued order that is filed
2

electronically “without the manual signature of a judicial officer or clerk has the same
force and effect as if the judicial officer . . . had signed a paper copy of the order.”
D.Colo.L.R. ECF Procedures (Civil) 4.14(b), version 6.0 (eff. 12/1/2014). Therefore,
Judge Gallagher’s Order on May 26, 2015, which was electronically filed, was valid.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion to Void the Time Limit Ordered by Magistrate
Judge Gordon P. Gallagher to ‘Cure’ an Alleged Deficiency in My Complaint” (ECF No.
8) is DENIED. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Designation of Record and Request for
Clarification of the Date on Which I am Required to File my ‘Cured’ Complaint in this
Case” is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It is
ORDERED that Plaintiff has until Monday, June 29, 2015 to cure the
deficiencies in his complaint, as noted in the Court’s April 23, 2015 Order. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall obtain the Court-approved form used in
filing a General Civil Complaint, along with the applicable instructions, at
www.cod.uscourts.gov. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff fails to cure the designated deficiencies by
Monday, June 29, 2015, the action will be dismissed without further notice. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the request that Judge Gallagher “sign” the previous
order is DENIED.
DATED June 23, 2015, at Denver, Colorado.

3

BY THE COURT:
s/Gordon P. Gallagher
United States Magistrate Judge

4