HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-cv-2306-RM-KLM - Perry v. State of Colorado, et al - 062 - Order to Show CauseIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 21-cv-02306-RM-KLM
ROBERT LAWRENCE PERRY,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF COLORADO,
CITY OF FORT COLLINS,
CSU BOARD OF GOVERNORS,
COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY, and
STEVEN VASCONCELLOS, Judicial Administrator,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiff proceeds as a pro se litigant in
this matter. On April 29, 2022, the Court issued an Order [#49]1 accepting Plaintiff’s
Second Amended Complaint [#50] for filing and construing this complaint as asserting
claims against the State of Colorado, the City of Fort Collins, the CSU Board of Governors,
Colorado State University, and Steven Vasconcellos. Defendants City of Fort Collins, CSU
Board of Governors, and Steven Vasconcellos responded to the Second Amended
Complaint [#50] by filing Motions to Dismiss [#51, #53].
This Order to Show Cause concerns Defendants State of Colorado and Colorado
1 “[#49]” is an example of the convention the Court uses to identify the docket number
assigned to a specific paper by the Court’s case management and electronic case filing system
(CM/ECF). This convention is used throughout this Order to Show Cause.
-1-
Case 1:21-cv-02306-RM-KLM Document 62 Filed 07/21/22 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
State University, neither of which has responded to the Second Amended Complaint [#50].
On September 16, 2021, counsel entered their appearances on behalf of the State of
Colorado, Colorado State University, CSU Board of Governors, and Steven Vasconcellos.
Notices [#20, #21]. On October 1, 2021, these counsel filed a Motion to Dismiss [#27] on
behalf of all four of these Defendants in response to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [#24].
That Motion to Dismiss [#27] was denied as moot when the Second Amended Complaint
[#50] was accepted for filing. See Order [#49].
As noted in its prior Order [#49], Plaintiff’s proposed Second Amended Complaint
[#50] was not entirely clear regarding the named Defendants, and the Court therefore
clarified that, in its view, the Second Amended Complaint [#50] was asserted against only
the State of Colorado, the City of Ford Collins, the CSU Board of Governors, Colorado
State University, and Steven Vasconcellos. No party filed an objection to the Order [#49]
to dispute the Court’s interpretation of who the named Defendants were. Yet, as noted,
only three of the five Defendants have answered or otherwise responded to the Second
Amended Complaint [#50], despite all Defendants being represented by counsel.
It is utterly unclear as to why Defendants State of Colorado and Colorado State
University have not answered or otherwise responded, especially given that both did so in
response to Plaintiff’s previously operative Amended Complaint. See Motion to Dismiss
[#27]. A clue may be offered by a footnote in the pending Motion to Dismiss [#53] filed by
Defendants CSU Board of Governors and Steven Vasconcellos. This footnote states:
The individual members of the CSU Board of Governors and other
individually named and unnamed state employees have not been personally
served, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. The undersigned respectfully
request leave to file one response after all remaining state employees have
been served.
-2-
Case 1:21-cv-02306-RM-KLM Document 62 Filed 07/21/22 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
Motion to Dismiss [#53] at 1 n.1. Based on this footnote, it appears that counsel did not
read the Court’s Order [#49] which specifically listed the names of Defendants in this case,
as construed by the Court. The individual members of the CSU Board of Governors and
other individuals (except for Steven Vasconcellos) were not construed to be named as
Defendants in this matter. Still, it is unclear why the State of Colorado and Colorado State
University have not responded to the Second Amended Complaint [#50]. Although there
may be an explanation which is not clear from the docket, it appears at this time that these
two Defendants have failed to defend against Plaintiff’s asserted claims. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants State of Colorado and Colorado State
University shall show cause in writing as to why this Court should not direct Plaintiff to seek
entry of default and default judgment against them for failing to defend. These two
Defendants shall respond to this Order to Show Cause no later than August 4, 2022.
Failure to respond and show good cause for these two Defendants’ neglect of this case will
result in the Court directing Plaintiff to seek entry of default and default judgment against
them.
Dated: July 21, 2022
-3-
Case 1:21-cv-02306-RM-KLM Document 62 Filed 07/21/22 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3