Opinion
Civil Action 1:21-cv-01000-CNS-NRN
10-20-2022
TRENTON HARRISON ORENDORF, Plaintiff, v. ARAPAHOE/DOUGLAS MENTAL HEALTH NETWORK, n/k/a ALL HEALTH NETWORK; and JAMES PURVIANCE, in his individual and official capacities, Defendants.
ORDER
Charlotte N Sweeney .United States District Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiff Trenton Harrison Orendorf's Objection to the Magistrate Judge's Order denying Mr. Orendorf's Motion to Continue (ECF No. 91). For the reasons set forth below, Mr. Orendorf's Objection is OVERRULED. The Magistrate Judge's Order denying Mr. Orendorf's Motion to Continue (ECF No. 88) is AFFIRMED.
I. BACKGROUND
The background of this case is set forth in the Magistrate Judge's Order (ECF No. 91 at 12), and the Court incorporates the Magistrate Judge's summary of the background. On September 20, 2022, the Magistrate Judge denied Mr. Orendorf's Motion to Continue (Id.). Mr. Orendorf timely filed his Objection to the Magistrate Judge's Order (ECF No. 92). Defendants timely filed their response (ECF No. 94).
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A motion to continue is a non-dispositive motion. A magistrate judge's order on such a motion will be affirmed unless it is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); Allen v. Sybase, Inc., 468 F.3d 642, 658 (10th Cir. 2006). Under the clearly erroneous standard, the magistrate judge's order will be affirmed unless, upon review of the evidence, this Court is “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Id.
III. ANALYSIS
The Court must construe Mr. Orendorf's Objection liberally. Busby v. Underbakke, No. 21-CV-02850-PAB-KLM, 2022 WL 1773802, at *1 (D. Colo. June 1, 2022) (citing Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991)). Doing so, Mr. Orendorf appears to argue that the Magistrate Judge erred in denying a continuance because he is still seeking counsel from entities such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the Federal Pro Se Clinic (ECF No. 92 at 1). Mr. Orendorf also contends that his upcoming release hearing, scheduled for December 1, 2022, counsels in favor of a continuance, given that his possible release would afford more opportunities for pursuing legal representation (Id.). Defendants argue that the Magistrate Judge did not err in denying Mr. Orendorf's continuance request because he has had nine months to secure a third attorney, Defendants have waited during this time to file their summary judgment motion, and that Mr. Orendorf's efforts to secure counsel have been unsuccessful (ECF No. 94 at 6-7).
Defendants filed their summary judgment motion on August 29, 2022 (ECF No. 78). The Magistrate Judge set a briefing schedule for Mr. Orendorf's response and Defendants' reply to the summary judgment motion in his Order denying Mr. Orendorf's continuance motion (ECF No. 91). This briefing schedule has elapsed because Mr. Orendorf filed his Objection to the Magistrate Judge's Order. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge shall set a new briefing schedule after this Order is filed.
The Court agrees with Defendants. The Magistrate Judge did not clearly err in denying Mr. Orendorf's continuance motion. As Defendants and the Magistrate Judge observe, Mr. Orendorf has had nine months to secure a third attorney after not availing himself of Mr. Buck's pro bono representation. And, in the words of the Magistrate Judge, the Court cannot “indefinitely delay the administration of justice” in the hopes that Mr. Orendorf may at some point in the future find a third attorney to represent him.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Magistrate Judge's Order (ECF No. 91) is AFFIRMED. Mr. Orendorf's Objection (ECF No. 92) is OVERRULED.