Opinion
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01434-CMA-MEH
09-28-2012
MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty , United States Magistrate Judge, on September 28, 2012.
Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Emergency Court Order and Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction - To Be Moved to Another Facility [filed September 27, 2012; docket #65]. The content of the motion reflects the same information and arguments set forth in Plaintiff's previously filed Motion for Investigation for Being Denied Access to the Court and Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order [docket #55] and "Reply" Motion for Investigation for Being Denied Access to the Court and Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order [docket #61], which remain pending before the Court. Because the Court perceives no different, alternative or additional request for relief in the present motion, the motion is denied without prejudice. To the extent that the Plaintiff intended to bring to the Court's attention an argument, theory or request for relief that is different than those set forth in his previous motions, the Court will allow the Plaintiff to re-file his motion setting forth specifically the new or different argument, theory or request for relief.
The Plaintiff is warned that any future filing that is repetitive, redundant or unintelligible will be stricken in accordance with D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1H.
Plaintiff's Motion to Clarify Statement [filed September 27, 2012; docket #67] is construed as a request to supplement the Plaintiff's previous requests for injunctive relief, and is granted. The Court will consider Plaintiff's statement set forth in the present motion in its adjudication of the requests for injunctive relief. However, the Court will not allow Plaintiff's requests for injunctive relief to become moving targets; therefore, the Court will grant no further requests to supplement his requests for injunctive relief without a showing of exceptional cause.