Opinion
Civil Action No. 11-cv-01615-PAB-MEH
02-16-2012
JOSEPH HOLT, Plaintiff, v. JOICE CHRUNK, DR. JOSEPH WERMERS, and DR. KATHY MCBRIDE, Defendants.
ORDER
Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge.
This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit on June 20, 2011, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. (Docket #1.) Plaintiff's claims arise out an incident in which he allegedly fell from a top bunk as a result of being heavily medicated. ( Id. at 3.) Plaintiff's amended complaint names J. Shoemaker, Dr. Franze, Dr. FishDePena, Joice Chrunk, Dr. Joseph Wermers, Dr. Kathy McBride, Srg. Buena Vida, and Officer Degroot as defendants. (Docket #13, 1.) On December 19, 2011, Defendants Shoemaker, Franze, FishDePena, Chrunk, Buena Vida, and Degroot (collectively the "CDOC Defendants") filed a motion to dismiss. (Docket #24.) Pursuant to D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1C and Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), the Court issued a minute order directing Plaintiff to file a response to the motion to dismiss on or before January 9, 2012. (Docket #28.)
On January 3, 2012, Plaintiff filed a letter with the Court indicating his intent to drop certain parties from the lawsuit. (Docket #31.) After reviewing Plaintiff's motion and the CDOC Defendants' response thereto, the Court determined that an amended pleading was not necessary, and that it would be possible for the Court to resolve the pending motion to dismiss by confining its analysis to the only remaining CDOC Defendant, Joice Chrunk. (See docket #36.) As of January 19, 2012, Plaintiff had not filed a response.
Consequently, on January 19, 2012, the Court issued an order to show cause directing Plaintiff to show cause, in writing and filed with the Court, why the CDOC Defendants' motion to dismiss should not be granted, and why the Court should not recommend dismissal of Plaintiff's claims for failure to prosecute the action. Plaintiff's response to the order to show cause was due on or before February 8, 2012.
On January 27, 2012, Plaintiff filed a letter with the Court describing the merits of his case. (Docket #38.) Although Plaintiff's letter does not refer to the Court's order to show cause or to the CDOC Defendants' motion to dismiss, the Court construes the letter liberally as a response to both. Therefore, Defendant Chrunk may file a reply in support of the CDOC Defendants' Motion to Dismiss on or before February 23, 2012.
Dated in Denver, Colorado, this 16th day of February, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
____________
Michael E. Hegarty
United States Magistrate Judge