Hamilton v. Boyd

Filing 36

MINUTE ORDER granting 28 Motion for Extension of Time; denying 31 Motion for Administrative Order; denying as premature 32 Motion for District Judge In this Case, by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer on 7/28/2015.(slibi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-01107-CBS
JAN B. HAMILTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
JUDGE JAMES B. BOYD,
Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER
ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE CRAIG B. SHAFFER
On May 29, 2015, the Court entered an order directing Plaintiff to cure
deficiencies within thirty days. (ECF No. 3). At Plaintiff’s request, the Court mailed her
copies of the necessary forms on June 16, 2015. (ECF No. 11). Plaintiff has already
been granted two extensions of time to comply with the May 29 Order. (See ECF Nos.
14 and 27). The current deadline for Plaintiff to file her complaint on the court-approved
Prisoner Complaint form is August 9, 2015. (ECF No. 27).
On July 27, 2015, Ms. Hamilton filed a “Motion for Extension of Time” (ECF No.
28) in which she states that the Prisoner Complaint form mailed to her on June 16, 2016
was confiscated by Pitkin County Sheriff’s deputies during her transfer from the Pitkin
County Jail to the Park County Jail. Accordingly, the Clerk’s Office shall mail to Plaintiff
a copy of the Prisoner Complaint form at the Park County Jail. Plaintiff shall use the
form in complying with the May 29 Order.
Plaintiff shall file her Prisoner Complaint on the court-approved form within 30
days of the date of this minute order. No further extensions will be granted absent a
showing of just cause. Failure to comply with this minute order will result in dismissal of
this action without further notice.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Administrative Order (ECF No. 31) is DENIED.
Plaintiff’s Motion for District Judge in this Case (ECF No. 32) is DENIED as
premature. This case will not be drawn to a District Judge unless Ms. Hamilton first
complies with the May 29, 2015 order directing her to cure deficiencies and the Court
determines, after preliminary review, that the action is not legally frivolous or barred by
the immunity of the named Defendant(s). See D.COLO.LCivR 8.1(b) and (c); 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A.
Dated: July 28, 2015