Carroll v. Schrader

• Court: District Court, D. Colorado
• Decided: November 1, 2019
• Docket: 1:19-cv-02132
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Raymond P. Moore

Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-02132-RM-MEH

DEBRA CARROLL,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFFERSON COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, CODY JANN, THERESE S. MCCANS, JEFFERSON COUNTY LIBRARY SYSTEM, SHERYL DITTON, EMILY KOLM, LITTLETON ADVENTIST HOSPITAL, DEVIN C. BATEMAN, TIMOTHY HIRSCH, and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-10,

Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER ______________________________________________________________________________

This matter is before the Court on three motions by Plaintiff, who proceeds pro se: Plaintiff’s Motion for Review of the September 30, 2019 Order to Stay Discovery and Motion for Order Regarding Representation of Emily Kolm (ECF No. 62), Amended Opposed Plaintiff’s Motion for Review of the September 30, 2019 Order to Stay Discovery and Motion for Order Regarding Representation of Emily Kolm (ECF No. 64), and Plaintiff’s Objections to Defendants’ Motions and Joinder to Stay Discovery and Opposed Motion to Quash Stays of Discovery (ECF No. 67). The motions essentially seek the same relief—an order lifting two orders by the magistrate judge (ECF Nos. 44, 57) granting stays of discovery in this case. Plaintiff’s motions are denied for the reasons below. This Court can modify or set aside a magistrate judge’s order on a nondispositive matter only if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); Hutchinson v. Pfeil, 105 F.2d 562, 566 (10th Cir. 1997). The Court must have “a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Ocelot Oil Corp. v. Sparrow Indus., 847 F.2d 1458, 1464 (10th Cir. 1988) (quotation omitted). Plaintiff filed this lawsuit after she was involuntarily detained in a psychiatric ward on July 29, 2017. (ECF No. 1.) Defendants have filed four different motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 10, 14, 16, 29), which have been referred to the magistrate judge and remain pending.

Defendants have also filed or joined various motions to stay discovery (ECF Nos. 41, 49, 53, 55), which the magistrate judge granted in two separate orders (ECF Nos. 44, 57). The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s filings and concludes that they provide no basis for finding the magistrate judge’s orders are clearly erroneous or contrary to law.1 Indeed, Plaintiff fails to meaningfully address the stay factors that governed the magistrate judge’s analysis of the pertinent issues. Given that the entire case may be resolved on the motions to dismiss, a discovery stay is appropriate under the present circumstances. The Court strongly encourages Plaintiff to contact the Federal Pro Se Clinic, which provides free assistance to people representing themselves in the U.S. District Court for the

District of Colorado. If Plaintiff wishes to avail herself of this service, she may make an

1 Plaintiff correctly identifies a typographical error in the Order at ECF No. 44. There, her claims are described as being set forth in “Am. Compl., ECF No. 26.” It should read “Compl., ECF No. 1.” This, however, has no bearing on the correctness of the magistrate judge’s legal analysis. appointment by phone (303-380-8786) or online at www.cobar.org/cofederalproseclinic. The Clinic is located at the Alfred A. Arraj Courthouse, 901 19th Street, Denver, CO 80294. Walk-in appointments may also be available. The motions (ECF Nos. 62, 64, 67) are DENIED. DATED this Ist day of November, 2019. BY THE COURT: é MOND P. MOORE United States District Judge