Bertolo et al v. Colorado Department of Corrections et al
Filing
89
ORDER denying 81 Plaintiff's "Motion to Objection of the Court Denied Motion Dated July 19, 2018". ORDERED by Judge Raymond P. Moore on 7/25/2018. (cthom, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Raymond P. Moore
Civil Action No. 17-cv-00773-RM-KLM
JAMES MICHAEL BERTOLO,
Plaintiff,
v.
MIKE ROMERO,
GARY WARD,
LAURA SHAIN,
LAURA BORREGO-GIBBS,
KRISTY STANSELL,
CAROL TRUJILLO,
TRISHA KAUTZ PA,
KELSEY DILLINGER, and
JOHN DOE,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s “Motion to Objection of the Court Denied
Motion Dated July 19, 2018” (the “Objection”) (ECF No. 81), objecting to the Magistrate
Judge’s Minute Order of July 16, 2018 (ECF No. 79) denying Plaintiff’s second request for
extension of time to submit a “revised” third amended complaint and in excess of 30 pages. In
consideration Plaintiff’s Objection, the Court has carefully examined the record in this case,
including when this case was initially filed (March 27, 2017), the opportunities Plaintiff has been
given to amend his complaint, and the extensions of time Plaintiff has previously been granted.
Upon consideration of the record, and the applicable law, including Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, and being
otherwise fully advised, Plaintiff’s objection is overruled because he fails to show that another
extension of time should have been afforded. On the contrary, for example, Plaintiff’s first
motion for extension of time to file another third amended complaint advised the court that he
had “completed the complaint [which exceeds 30 pages], but the law library clerk will not print
the complaint in excess of 30 pages without” a court order.1 (ECF No. 71 at ¶10, emphasis
added.) That first motion for extension of time is dated June 20, 2018, more than one month
ago. Thus, Plaintiff failed to show that he should have been given another extension of time.
In considering Plaintiff’s Objection, the Court recognizes that the July 16, 2018, Minute
Order denied Plaintiff’s second motion for extension of time as moot as a third amended
complaint had been filed, but it appears the second motion was not moot.2 Instead, by Minute
Order dated June 28, 2018, the Magistrate Judge had granted Plaintiff an additional 14 days to
submit another third amended complaint (essentially, a fourth amended complaint) and in excess
of 30 pages (maximum of 45 pages). (ECF No. 75.) Regardless, for the reasons stated above,
Plaintiff’s second motion was nonetheless properly subject to denial for failure to show good
cause for the requested extension. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion to Objection of the Court Denied Motion Dated July
19, 2018” (ECF No. 81) is DENIED.
DATED this 25th day of July, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
____________________________________
RAYMOND P. MOORE
United States District Judge
1
Plaintiff further advised that he would continue condensing the amended complaint further, awaiting further court
order.
2
In addition to his first request for an extension of time and leave to exceed the 30-page limitation, Plaintiff had
filed a third amended complaint within the 30-page limitation. (ECF No. 76.)
2
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?