Randall v. Colorado State Patrol, The et al
Filing
19
ORDER denying 15 Motion to Reopen. And denying as Moot 16 duplicate of that Motion. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 3/14/2013.(klyon, )
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Case No. 09-cv-02304-REB-BNB
LOREN J. RANDALL,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE COLORADO STATE PATROL,
THE ARAPAHOE COUNTY SHERRIFF’S [sic] OFFICE, and
THE ARAPAHOE HOUSE,
Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REOPEN
Blackburn, J.
This matter is before me on the plaintiff’s Motion To Administratively Reopen
and Resume Case Following Tolling Period for Active Federal Service, Pursuant
to the Service Member’s Civil Relief Act (50 U.S.C. 422 and Notice of Change of
Address [#15]1 filed April 6, 2012. A duplicate of this motion is docketed as [#16]. I
deny the motion [#15] and deny the duplicate motion [#16] as superfluous.
Previously, the plaintiff filed a motion asking that this case be closed
administratively while he was deployed with the military. On June 29, 2011, I entered
an order [#14] granting that motion. I closed this case administratively and ordered that
“on or before January 20, 2012, the plaintiff may move to re-open this case on a
showing of good cause to re-open.” Order [#14], p. 3.
1
“[#15]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.
The plaintiff’s present motion was filed more than two months after the deadline
set in my June 29, 2011, order. Further, I note that on April 6, 2011, the same day the
present motion was filed, the court sent mail to the plaintiff at his address of record.
The address of record used by the court was the address provided by the plaintiff in his
present motion. That mail was returned as undeliverable. See returned mail [#17].
This is further demonstration of the plaintiff’s irregular and unreliable prosecution of this
case. On these bases, I conclude that the plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause to
re-open this case.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the plaintiff’s Motion To Administratively Reopen and Resume Case
Following Tolling Period for Active Federal Service, Pursuant to the Service
Member’s Civil Relief Act (50 U.S.C. 422 and Notice of Change of Address [#15]
filed April 6, 2012, is DENIED;
2. That the duplicate of that motion, docketed as [#16], is DENIED as moot.
Dated March 14, 2013, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
