Opinion
Civil Action 19-cv-00154-CMA-KLM
06-17-2021
HUNTER ADAM MELNICK, Plaintiff, v. RICK RAEMISCH, KAYLA JOHNSTON DEAN GONZALES, SUSAN WHITE, CHAMOIS FANELLIS-ARMENTROUT, JOE WHITE, JOE THISTLEWOOD, NICOLE JIMENEZ, OMER GARCIA, BRANDON MATHEWS, AHO WATERS COLORADO STATE BOARD OF PAROLE, SHEILE, BRYCE GILMORE, TAMMIS JAHN, RSA INC., AUARORA MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE, and STATE OF COLORADO, Defendants.
ORDER
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO United States District Judge
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Stay and Status (Doc. # 73), Plaintiff's Motion for Status (Doc. # 76), and Magistrate Judge Mix's Recommendation regarding the some (Doc. # 87). For the following reasons, the motions are denied as moot.
Plaintiff requested a 90-day stay of proceedings “because of the COVID 19 pandemic and obviously lack of law library access.” (Doc. # 73). Plaintiff then filed a “Motion for Status” (Doc. # 76), which provided additional reasons why a stay was necessary: “Plaintiff does not have contact lenses, and therefore, has extremely limited vision. . . . Unfortanantly [sic], this leaves Plaintiff unable to pursue any legal actions at this time[.]” (Doc. # 76, p. 1). The Court referred both motions to Judge Mix.
Judge Mix determined that, in light of Plaintiff's vision issues and lack of library access “[e]ntry of a stay may be . . . proper.” (Doc. # 87, p. 2). However, Plaintiff had not provided any information about when he expected to regain library access, or when he expected to obtain contact lenses. Given the lack of clarity on these matters, Judge Mix determined that, rather than stay the case, it would be more appropriate to administratively close the case and allow Plaintiff to reopen it “when Plaintiff can demonstrate that he is able to fully prosecute this case and comply with deadlines.” (Doc. # 87, p. 2).
Plaintiff objected, stating: “Plaintiff just went to Denver Heat[h] and renewed his contact lens prescription. The contact lenses should be here within two weeks. Also Plaintiff was moved to a location that has more law library access. Plaintiff believes that Plaintiff can still prosecute at this time.” (Doc. # 91, p. 1).
Given the above representations by Plaintiff, the Court concludes that the requested stay is no longer necessary, and Plaintiff's motions are now moot. Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion for Stay and Status (Doc. # 73) and Motion for Status (Doc. # 76) are DENIED AS MOOT. Judge Mix's Recommendation (Doc. # 87) is REJECTED AS MOOT.