Oakley v. Phillips et al

Filing 22

MINUTE ORDER denying 20 Motion for the court to make a copy of his "Objection to Defendants [sic] Motion to Dismiss" and send to the defendant, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 8/19/2015.(slibi, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 15-cv-01004-CMA-MJW JACOB DANIEL OAKLEY, Plaintiff, v. SHARRON PHILLIPS: (Individual and Official Capacity), Defendant. MINUTE ORDER Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe It is hereby ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Motion (Docket No. 20) for the court to make a copy of his “Objection to Defendants [sic] Motion to Dismiss” (Docket No. 19) and send it to the defendant is denied. This court is not a copying/mailing service. In any event, defense counsel will be able to access plaintiff’s “Objection” on line. Plaintiff, however, is not relieved of making and sending a copy of all future filings to defense counsel. The court notes that plaintiff marked/highlighted a section on his exhibit A2 (Legal Access Program Required Photocopy & Page Limit Policy) to support his claim that the facility wrongly denied his copy request because there is a 35-page limit on copies made at the facility of Rule 12 motions and responses, and his document was only 24 pages. Plaintiff’s document that he sought to have copied, however, was captioned as an “Objection” rather than a “response.” Pursuant to the submitted Page Limit Policy (Ex. A2), copies of all other USDC motion papers are limited to 20 pages. The “Objection” plaintiff sought to have copied exceeded that limitation. Furthermore, nothing precludes plaintiff from making a hand-written copy if he is unable to make a photocopy. Date: August 19, 2015

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?