Calbart v. Denver Sheriff Department

Full title: ERNIE LEE CALBART, SR., Plaintiff, v. THE DENVER SHERIFF DEPARTMENT…

Court: United States District Court, D. Colorado

Date published: Jan 13, 2011

Civil Action No. 10-cv-01385-LTB-CBS (D. Colo. Jan. 13, 2011)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 10-cv-01385-LTB-CBS.

January 13, 2011

ORDER

CRAIG SHAFFER, Magistrate Judge

This civil action comes before the court on: (1) Mr. Calbart's "1^st Request for Production of Documents" (Doc. # 81) (docketed by the Clerk of the Court as "First Motion for Production of Documents"); (2) Mr. Calbart's letter asking "if I can have a transcript of the hearing" (Doc. # 82) (docketed by the Clerk of the Court as "Motion for Transcript;" (3) Mr. Calbart's "Complaint" (Doc. # 83); and (4) Mr. Calbart's "2^nd Motion for Appointment of Counsel" (Doc. # 84) (all filed on January 11, 2011). Pursuant to the Order of Reference dated October 20, 2010 (doc. # 28) and the memorandum dated January 13, 2011 (Doc. # 87), these matters were referred to the Magistrate Judge. The court has reviewed the matters, the entire case file, and the applicable law and is sufficiently advised in the premises.

First, Mr. Calbart's discovery requests directed to Defendants are to be served on defense counsel and are not to be filed with the court. Mr. Calbart's "1^st Request for Production of Documents" that was docketed by the Clerk of the Court as "First Motion for Production of Documents" will be denied as a motion and treated as a copy of his discovery requests sent to Defendants.

Second, Mr. Calbart is not entitled to free copies of transcripts of hearings. Should Mr. Calbart wish to order and pay for a transcript of a hearing he may submit a written request and make arrangements to submit the appropriate payment for such transcript.

Third, Mr. Calbart has submitted a new Complaint without filing a motion seeking leave of court to file an amended pleading. On November 17, 2010, the Defendants who have been served filed their Answer. ( See Doc. # 55). Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a), a "party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within . . . 21 days after service of a responsive pleading. . . ." Mr. Calbart has already amended his initial Complaint three times ( See Docs. # 3, # 6, # 15, and # 23) and more than 21 days has passed since the filing of Defendants' Answer. If Mr. Calbart seeks to again amend his current Third Amended Complaint, he must file with the court a motion for leave to amend and attach a copy of the proposed amended complaint. The court will strike Mr. Calbart's purported amended pleading that was filed without permission.

Finally, Mr. Calbart's now makes his fourth Motion for Appointment of Counsel. ( See Docs. # 45, # 49, and # 52). This request will be denied for the same reasons explained in the court's previous Orders denying Mr. Calbart's previous motions seeking the appointment of counsel. ( See Docs. # 47, # 51, and # 54).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Mr. Calbart's "1^st Request for Production of Documents" (Doc. # 81) (filed on January 11, 2011) is DENIED as a motion and treated as a copy of Mr. Calbart's discovery requests made to Defendants.

2. Mr. Calbart's letter asking "if I can have a transcript of the hearing" (Doc. # 82) (filed on January 11, 2011) (docketed by the Clerk of the Court as "Motion for Transcript . . .") is DENIED.

3. Mr. Calbart's "Complaint" (Doc. # 83) (filed on January 11, 2011) is STRICKEN.

4. Mr. Calbart's "2^nd Motion for Appointment of Counsel" (Doc. # 84) (filed on January 11, 2011) is DENIED.

DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 13th day of January, 2011.