Prigge v. Woods Cross Police Department et al

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 12 Motion for Consultation. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells on 5/13/2016. (eat)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
Diane R. Prigge,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
DENYING MOTION FOR CONSULTATION
Plaintiff,

v.

Case No. 2:16-cv-00140-JNP-BCW

Woods Cross Police Department, et al.,

District Judge Jill Parrish

Defendants.

Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells

This case is referred to the undersigned from Judge Parrish in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B). 1 Plaintiff, Ms. Prigge, filed a Complaint against the Woods Cross Police
Department and other Defendants on March 28, 2016. 2 Plaintiff alleges she was handing out
copies of her resume to local businesses around the area when she was “abducted form the
Hampton Inn.” 3 According to Ms. Prigge, certain Woods Cross police officers showed up at her
door and arrested her without a warrant. 4 Ms. Prigge then had to leave behind certain belongings
when she left with the police. Ms. Prigge “was not booked, nor finger printed but given food
inside a jail cell for two days.” 5 Plaintiff alleges she never received her cell phone back after it
went missing. 6 Plaintiff also makes allegations against a court in New Jersey and Judge Andrea
Carter who failed to correctly record Ms. Prigge’s daughter’s date of birth. 7

1

Docket no. 5.

2

Docket no. 4.

3

Complaint p. 2.

4

Id. p. 2-4.

5

Id. p. 4.

6

Id. p. 5.

7

Id. p. 6.

Plaintiff has filed a document that states she “requests in this motion for consultation as
this matter is more complex than meet the eye.” 8 The court construes this document as a Motion
for Consultation. 9 In her motion Ms. Prigge goes on to relate her experience in graduating with a
degree in paralegal earned in Arizona. She also states that other cases filed by her in Arizona
and in New Jersey “have never been heard . . . .” 10 The court has carefully considered Ms.
Prigge’s motion. It is unclear from the motion, however, what relief she is requesting. In a
broad sense it appears she is requesting consultation, but it is unknown with whom she desires a
consultation or exactly why such a consultation is necessary. A broad unsupported assertion that
the case is “more complex than meets the eye” does not justify a consultation even if it was
known with whom Ms. Prigge desires such a consultation.
Accordingly, the court DENIES Ms. Prigge’s Motion for Consultation.

DATED this 13 May 2016.

Brooke C. Wells
United States Magistrate Judge

8

Mtn. p. 1, docket no. 12.

9

Docket no. 12.

10

Id.

2