From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brown v. Cantrell

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Jan 18, 2012
Civil Action No. 11-cv-00200-PAB-MEH (D. Colo. Jan. 18, 2012)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 11-cv-00200-PAB-MEH

01-18-2012

JOE BROWN, Plaintiff, v. JACK CANTRELL, Director of UNICOR, and HARLEY LAPPIN, Director of the Bureau of Prisons, Defendants.


ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

Michael E. Hegarty , United States Magistrate Judge.

Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [docket #49], Plaintiff's response to the motion and a reply brief from the Defendants. The Court notes that neither party addresses the Tenth Circuit's opinion in Williams v. Meese, 926 F.2d 994 (10th Cir. 1991) and its progeny. Because the opinion appears to be relevant to and, perhaps, binding on the issues raised in this matter, the Court will order the parties to supplement their briefing by addressing Williams' holding and its application, if any, to Plaintiff's claims.

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that on or before February 1, 2012, the Plaintiff and Defendants shall each file a supplemental brief, no longer than five pages, addressing only the issues identified in this order.

Dated this 18th day of January, 2012, in Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

_____________________

Michael E. Hegarty

United States Magistrate Judge


Summaries of

Brown v. Cantrell

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Jan 18, 2012
Civil Action No. 11-cv-00200-PAB-MEH (D. Colo. Jan. 18, 2012)
Case details for

Brown v. Cantrell

Case Details

Full title:JOE BROWN, Plaintiff, v. JACK CANTRELL, Director of UNICOR, and HARLEY…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Jan 18, 2012

Citations

Civil Action No. 11-cv-00200-PAB-MEH (D. Colo. Jan. 18, 2012)