Opinion
Civil Action No. 11-cv-01459-CMA-KLM
12-30-2011
LORAL HUFFMAN, Plaintiff, v. DR. ALLRED, DR. CARTER, SANCHEZ, Case Manager, DERR, Unit Manager, JOHN DOE, Mailroom Supervisor, JANE DOE, Food Supervisor, BUCKNER, Investigator, LINCOLN, D.H.O., and CRANK, Trust Manager, Defendants.
MINUTE ORDER
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration [Docket No. 158; Filed December 28, 2011], Motion for Copy of Entire File [Docket No. 159; Filed December 28, 2011], Motion for Extension and Copy of Affidavit [Docket No. 160; Filed December 28, 2011, and Motion to Clarify Date [Docket No. 161; Filed December 28, 2011].
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Reconsideration [#158] is DENIED. Plaintiff provides no legal authority for his request, and the Court will not construct an argument on his behalf. See Whitney v. New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170, 1173-74 (10th Cir. 1997) (The Court should not be a pro se litigant's advocate, nor should the Court "supply additional factual allegations to round out [a pro se litigant's] complaint or construct a legal theory on [his] behalf.") (internal citation omitted).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Copy of Entire File [#159] is GRANTED IN PART as follows. The Clerk's Office is directed to mail to Plaintiff a copy of the docket and a copy of the Orders located at Docket Nos. 76, 85, 108, 119, 128, 135, 137, 140, 149, and 153. The Court grants this request as a one-time courtesy to Plaintiff. The Court reminds Plaintiff that regardless of his in forma pauperis status, he is not entitled to unlimited cost-free copies and forms in this litigation. See Windsor v. Martindale, 175 F.R.D. 665, 670-72 (D. Colo. 1997).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Extension and Copy of Affidavit [#160] is GRANTED IN PART as follows. The Clerk's Office is directed to mail to Plaintiff a copy of Dr. Clemmer's affidavit located at Docket No. 139. The Motion is DENIED AS MOOT in all other respects, as the District Court affirmed the December 8, 2011 Recommendation on December 28, 2011 [#153].
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Clarify Date [#161] is DENIED AS MOOT. All of Plaintiff's motions seeking to hold Defendants in contempt of court have been resolved.