Summary
finding that a failure to intervene theory was not properly before the court, because the "[p]laintiff d[id] not mention this claim or any supporting allegations in his complaint . . . ."
Summary of this case from Eller v. ToncheOpinion
Civil Action No. 06-cv-02525-WYD-MEH.
January 14, 2009
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff's Unopposed Combined Motions [doc. #174, filed December 29, 2008]. Plaintiff makes six separate requests, each of which I address in turn. First, Plaintiff requests that standby counsel be assigned to assist him at trial. On January 18, 2008 [doc. #97], Magistrate Judge Hegarty ordered that Plaintiff's case "be placed on the list of pro se cases for which the Court is seeking volunteer counsel maintained by the CJA/Pro Se Division of the Clerk's Office." On August 15, 2008 [doc. #146] and December 31, 2008 [doc. #178], Magistrate Judge Hegarty denied two subsequent Motions to Appoint Counsel by Plaintiff, noting that Plaintiff's name was already on the list for volunteer counsel and that the Court could do nothing further to help him find an attorney. Likewise, I have no authority to appoint counsel for any party, even in a standby capacity. Accordingly, this request is DENIED.
Second, Plaintiff requests the Court to issue an Order for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum so that he can be present in District Court at his trial. This request will be GRANTED, and the Order will be issued separately. To the extent there are security concerns, those need to be addressed directly with the United States Marshal. Third, Plaintiff requests the Court to order that he be transferred from the Limon Correctional Facility to the Denver Reception and Diagnostic Center and held there for the duration of his trial. This matter is within the discretion and control of the United States Marshals Service, and accordingly this request is DENIED to the extent it asks me to order something not within the proper scope of my authority. Fourth, Plaintiff asks the Court to deputize officers of the Colorado Department of Corrections and require them to transport the Plaintiff to and from the trial. This is another matter outside the proper scope of my authority, and accordingly this request is DENIED.
Fifth, Plaintiff requests that the Court allow him to wear his suit and tie while in the courtroom and before the jury. This request is GRANTED, with the understanding that Plaintiff is required to provide his own clothing. Finally, Plaintiff asks the Court to contact the Limon Correctional Facility Legal Liaison to ensure that she makes him available for the Final Trial Preparation Conference via teleconference. This request is GRANTED to the extent it asks the Court to ensure that Plaintiff appears for the Final Trial Preparation Conference, but I will require him to appear via video conference, and the Court will ensure that the necessary arrangements be made. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiff's Unopposed Combined Motions [doc. #174, filed December 29, 2008] are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. In accordance therewith, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff is allowed to wear a suit and tie, which he is to provide, in the courtroom. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will ensure that the necessary arrangements are made for Plaintiff to appear before the Court via video conference at the Final Trial Preparation Conference and Hearing on Pending Motions scheduled for Thursday, January 22, 2009 at 11:00 a.m.