HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017CV884 - CHAYCE ANDERSON V. FCPS OFFICER JASON SHUTTERS - 073 - MINUTE ORDERIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 17-cv-00884-CMA-STV
CHAYCE AARON ANDERSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
JASON SHUTTERS,
Defendant.
MINUTE ORDER
Entered By Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak
This case matter is before the Court upon its review of Plaintiff’s letter to the
Court dated January 31, 2018. [#71] In the letter, Plaintiff states that he was
unexpectedly transferred from Arkansas Valley Correctional Facility (“AVCF”) to the
Larimer County Jail on January 29, 2018 and thus had to leave “the bulk of [his] legal
work and legal documents” at AVCF. [Id. at 1] Plaintiff thus requests that the Court
send him a copy of (1) the Scheduling Order, (2) the “Local Rules of Practice,” and (3) a
“Guide to Civil Suits.” [Id. at 2] As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that, pursuant
to Judge Arguello’s Civil Practice Standard 7.1A(a), “[a]ll requests for the Court to take
any action, make any type of ruling, or provide any type of relief must be contained in a
written motion.” Plaintiff’s letter does not satisfy this requirement. However, the Court
finds it appropriate to send Plaintiff the requested documents so as to not further delay
this litigation.
On September 20, 2017, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Stay Discovery
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1) Pending Determination of Qualified Immunity. [#45]
As a result, the Court deferred conducting a scheduling conference until after resolution
of Defendant’s motion to dismiss based upon qualified immunity.1 [#47] As a result, no
Scheduling Order has yet been entered in this case. However, the Court directs the
1 Although Defendant’s initial motion to dismiss [#43] was denied as moot when Plaintiff
was granted leave to file his Second Amended Complaint [#60], Defendant
subsequently moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, in part based upon
qualified immunity [#63]. That motion is currently pending.
Case 1:17-cv-00884-CMA-STV Document 73 Filed 02/07/18 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2
Clerk of Court to mail Plaintiff a copy of (1) the template joint proposed scheduling order
and instructions, available from the Court’s website; (2) a copy of Section I – Civil Rules
and Section V – Attorney Rules of the Local Rules of Practice for the District of
Colorado; (3) a copy of Judge Arguello’s Civil Practice Standards; and (4) the Guide to
Civil Lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, available
from the Court’s website.
Plaintiff’s letter also requests that “counsel [ ] be appointed to assist [Plaintiff] in
the furtherance of this case.”2 [#71 at 3] To the extent Plaintiff seeks the appointment
of pro bono counsel, he must file a separate, written motion that addresses the factors
for appointment of pro bono counsel identified in D.C.COLO.LAttyR 15(f)(1)(B).3
SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 7, 2018 BY THE COURT:
s/Scott T. Varholak__________
United States Magistrate Judge
2 Plaintiff’s letter also requests an extension until February 9, 2018 to file an objection to
this Court’s Recommendation and Order [#60], entered on December 13, 2017, and
adopted by Judge Christine M. Arguello on January 3, 2018 [#66]. That request, if
entertained, must be decided by Judge Arguello. As noted above, however, pursuant to
Judge Arguello’s Civil Practice Standard 7.1A(a), “[a]ll requests for the Court to take any
action, make any type of ruling, or provide any type of relief must be contained in a
written motion.”
3 Those factors include: (1) the nature and complexity of the action; (2) the potential
merit of the claims or defenses of the unrepresented party; (3) the demonstrated
inability of the unrepresented party to retain an attorney by other means; and (4) the
degree to which the interests of justice, including the benefits to the court, will be served
by appointment of counsel.
Case 1:17-cv-00884-CMA-STV Document 73 Filed 02/07/18 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2