Opinion
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01434-CMA-MEH
08-10-2012
JOHN RAINEY, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD, Defendant.
MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty , United States Magistrate Judge, on August 10, 2012.
Plaintiff's Motion for Emergency Court Order to be Moved to Another Facility [filed August 3, 2012; docket #31], Plaintiff's Motion for Examination and Inspection of Evidence [filed August 3, 2012; docket #32] and Plaintiff's [Motion] for Examination of Evidence #2 [filed August 3, 2012; docket #33] are denied without prejudice for the following reasons.
First, Plaintiff's request for an "emergency" court order may be construed as brought pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b) for a temporary restraining order and, as such, the motion fails to comply with D.C. Colo. LCivR 65.1B and C. If the Plaintiff chooses to re-file his motion, he should specify whether the motion is brought pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b), in which case he must comply with the rule and with Local Rule 65.1, or pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a) for a preliminary injunction.
The Court notes that Plaintiff seeks no injunctive relief in either the original Complaint nor the Amended Complaint filed August 3, 2012.
With respect to the remaining motions, Plaintiff requests that the Court "examine evidence the Plaintiff present [sic] in the complaint and motion for emergency court order." Docket #32. However, in light of this order, the Plaintiff's request for the Court to "examine" and "inspect" the factual allegations of and attachments, if any, to his Amended Complaint and motion are premature. To the extent that the Plaintiff seeks to have the Court consider any affidavits or documents in connection with a motion, he need only attach copies of such documents to the motion and incorporate his arguments into the motion itself (that is, he need not file a separate motion asking the Court to consider documents and arguments in support of the motion).