Opinion
Civil Action No. 20-cv-01883-RM-KLM
05-17-2021
THOMAS A. DORN, Plaintiff, v. MEREDITH AVERY, and LILLIAN AVERY, Defendants.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on "Plaintiff's Response to Order" (ECF No. 37) which was filed in this case and Plaintiff's other case, Dorn v. Carpenter, 20-cv-02103-RM-KLM. Because the Response seeks relief, and being mindful that Plaintiff proceeds pro se, the Court construes the Response as a motion. So construed, the motion is DENIED.
The Court construes Plaintiff's filings liberally because he proceeds pro se. Nonetheless, the Tenth Circuit has "has repeatedly insisted that pro se parties follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants." Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
Plaintiff's Response is not a model of clarity. There is no outstanding order, so it is unclear to what order Plaintiff is responding. Regardless, Plaintiff apparently seeks an injunction against Defendants, Judge Carpenter, and Jefferson County Court ("Jeffco") which would cover New York, New Jersey, and Colorado. But, Plaintiff fails discuss or show the requirements for injunctive relief are met, Free the Nipple-Fort Collins v. City of Fort Collins, Colo., 916 F.3d 792, 797 (10th Cir. 2019) (setting forth requirements for typical preliminary-injunction and for disfavored injunctions), or that the Court may enjoin nonparties Judge Carpenter and Jeffco, see Com. Sec. Bank v. Walker Bank & Tr. Co., 456 F.2d 1352, 1354 (10th Cir. 1972) ("To enjoin an act, the court must have jurisdiction of the person so enjoined."). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff's Response to Order, construed as a motion, is DENIED.
DATED this 17th day of May, 2021.
BY THE COURT:
/s/_________
RAYMOND P. MOORE
United States District Judge