Gabriel v. El Paso County Criminal Justice Center et al

Filing 91

ORDER denying 89 Second Amended Motion To Reconsider 84 Order Granting Defendant Cooper's Motion for Extension To File Out of Time. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 11/13/2015.(mlace, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 15-cv-01491-REB-CBS
VINCENT GABRIEL,
Plaintiff,
v.
EL PASO COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE CENTER,
THERESA PEDLEY COOPER,
CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS,
CORRECTIONAL HEALTHCARE COMPANIES, and
In Theresa Pedley’s and her male counterpart’s individual capacity as employees of El
Paso CJC,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING SECOND AMENDED MOTION TO
RECONSIDER [ECF DOC 84] GRANTING DEFENDANT
COOPER’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION TO FILE OUT OF TIME
Blackburn, J.
The matter before me is plaintiff’s Second Amended Motion To Reconsider
[ECF Doc 84] Order Granting Defendant Cooper’s Motion for Extension To File
Out of Time [#89],1 filed November 12, 2015. This is now the third iteration of this
motion that plaintiff has filed in as many days. (See Amended Motion To Reconsider
[ECF Doc 84] Order Granting Defendant Cooper’s Motion for Extension To File
Out of Time [#88], filed November 11, 2015; Motion To Reconsider [ECF Doc 84]
Order Granting Defendant Cooper’s Motion for Extension To File Out of Time

1

“[#89]” 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.

[#88], filed November 10, 2015.) On the very day the instant motion was filed, I denied
plaintiff’s Amended Motion [#88]. (Order Denying Amended Motion To Reconsider
[ECF Doc 84] Order Granting Defendant Cooper’s Motion for Extension To File
Out of Time [#90], filed November 12, 2015.) It is not at all apparent how the present,
allegedly amended, motion differs substantively (if at all) from its predecessors. Plaintiff
herein seeks the same relief based on the same unavailing arguments that I have
considered and rejected previously.
It is inappropriate for plaintiff to continue to flood the docket in this case with
redundant motions without seeking to withdraw the prior motion or giving any indication
as to why amendment was thought necessary. I have warned plaintiff in the very recent
past that “consider revoking his ability to use the [CM/ECF] system if there continue to
be multiple, redundant filings and irregularities in the docketing of submissions.”
(Minute Order at 2 n. 3 [#76], filed October 29, 2015.) This pattern is disruptive at
best. At this point, it verges on abusive. The court has inherent authority to curb
abusive litigation procedures, regardless whether done from malice or merely ignorance
of proper procedure. Plaintiff’s pro se status does not absolve him of the responsibility
for complying with the rules and procedures of this court as he litigates his claims.
I therefore again specifically advise and warn plaintiff to cease filing multiple,
redundant motions or risk loss of his electronic filing privileges and possible further
sanctions from this court.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s Second Amended Motion To
Reconsider [ECF Doc 84] Order Granting Defendant Cooper’s Motion for

2

Extension To File Out of Time [#89], filed November 12, 2015, is denied.
Dated November 13, 2015, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

3