Nathanael Owens v. Michael Hazelton, in his official and individual capacities, Johnny Reyes, in his individual capacity, Stephen Seidel, in his individual capacity, and John and Jane Does

D. Colorado

Nathanael Owens v. Michael Hazelton, in his official and individual capacities, Johnny Reyes, in his individual capacity, Stephen Seidel, in his individual capacity, and John and Jane Does

District Court, D. Colorado·Decided August 20, 2026·No. 1:25-cv-01497·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Nina Y. Wang

Civil Action No. 25-cv-01497-NYW-KAS

NATHANAEL OWENS,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL HAZELTON, in his official and individual capacities, JOHNNY REYES, in his individual capacity, STEPHEN SEIDEL, in his individual capacity, and JOHN AND JANE DOES,

Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kathryn A. Starnella issued on July 18, 2026. [Doc. 32]. Judge Starnella recommends that the CDOC Officials’ Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion to Dismiss”), [Doc. 17], be granted and that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Hazelton, Reyes, and Seidel be dismissed without prejudice, [Doc. 32 at 17]. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the Parties. [Id.]; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on July 20, 2026. See [Doc. 32].1 No

1 The Recommendation is dated Saturday, July 18, 2026, but it was not entered on the Court’s docket and mailed to Plaintiff until Monday, July 20, 2026. See [Doc. 32]. Therefore, the Court deems it served as of July 20, 2026. The Court further notes that the Recommendation was not returned to the Court as undeliverable. Party has objected to the Recommendation and the time to do so has elapsed. In the absence of an objection, the district court may review a magistrate judge’s recommendation under any standard it deems appropriate. See Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It

does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a [magistrate judge’s] factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”). In this matter, the Court has reviewed the Recommendation to satisfy itself that there is “no clear error on the face of the record.”2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment. Based on this review, the Court has concluded that the Recommendation is a correct application of the law to Plaintiff’s allegations. Accordingly, the Recommendation is respectfully ADOPTED. The Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Hazelton, Reyes, and Seidel are DISMISSED without prejudice. However, Plaintiff also names “John and Jane Doe” as Defendants in this case,

[Doc. 1 at 1], though the Court notes the lack of specific allegations related to the Doe Defendants, see [id. at 4–5]. “[P]ursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 10, a caption to a complaint must include the names of all parties.” Culp v. Williams, No. 10-cv-00886-CMA-CBS, 2011 WL 1597686, at *3 (D. Colo. Apr. 27, 2011), aff’d, 456 F. App’x 718 (10th Cir. 2012). The “Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not explicitly allow the naming of fictitious or anonymous parties in a lawsuit,” and for this reason, “‘an action may be dismissed if the defendant is not sufficiently identified to permit service of process.’” Id. (quoting Stratton

2 This standard of review is something less than a “clearly erroneous or . . . contrary to law” standard of review, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which in turn is less than a de novo review, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). v. City of Boston, 731 F. Supp. 42, 45 (D. Mass. 1989)). And a court “should only allow claims against parties whose names are unknown to proceed ‘if the complaint makes allegations specific enough to permit the identity of the party to be ascertained after reasonable discovery.’” Pearson v. Colo. Dep’t of Transp., No. 18-cv-02538-KLM, 2019

WL 3550208, at *4 (D. Colo. Aug. 5, 2019) (quoting Hartley v. Wilfert, 931 F. Supp. 2d 230, 233 (D.D.C. 2013)). In the 15 months since this case was filed, Plaintiff has not identified the Doe Defendants, and the Complaint does not contain any allegations that would help identify the Doe Defendants. See [Doc. 1]. The Court recognizes that Plaintiff is pro se and has not had the benefit of discovery in this case, but the case cannot meaningfully proceed unless Plaintiff identifies the Doe Defendants. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE, on or before September 17, 2026, why his claims against the unidentified Doe Defendants should not be dismissed under Local Rule 41.1 for failure to prosecute and/or failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See

D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.1 (“A judicial officer may issue an order to show cause why a case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with these rules, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or a court order. If good cause is not shown, a district judge . . . may enter an order of dismissal with or without prejudice.”). Plaintiff is advised that if he fails to respond to this Order to Show Cause by the Court's deadline, his claims against the Doe Defendants may be dismissed without prejudice without further notice from the Court. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: (1) The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kathryn A. Starnella [Doc. 32] is ADOPTED; (2) The CDOC Officials’ Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 17] is GRANTED; (3) Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Hazelton, Reyes, and Seidel are DISMISSED without prejudice; (4) |The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Defendants Hazelton, Reyes, and Seidel as Parties to this case; (5) On or before September 17, 2026, Plaintiff shall SHOW CAUSE, in writing, why his claims against the unidentified Doe Defendants should not be dismissed under Local Rule 41.1 for failure to prosecute and/or failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and (6) The Clerk of Court shall mail a copy of this Order to: Nathanael Owens, #176493 Sterling Correctional Facility (SCF) P.O. Box 6000 Sterling, CO 80751 DATED: August 20, 2026 BY THE COURT:

United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Nina Y. Wang

Civil Action No. 25-cv-01497-NYW-KAS

NATHANAEL OWENS,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL HAZELTON, in his official and individual capacities, JOHNNY REYES, in his individual capacity, STEPHEN SEIDEL, in his individual capacity, and JOHN AND JANE DOES,

Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kathryn A. Starnella issued on July 18, 2026. [Doc. 32]. Judge Starnella recommends that the CDOC Officials’ Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion to Dismiss”), [Doc. 17], be granted and that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Hazelton, Reyes, and Seidel be dismissed without prejudice, [Doc. 32 at 17]. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the Parties. [Id.]; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on July 20, 2026. See [Doc. 32].1 No

1 The Recommendation is dated Saturday, July 18, 2026, but it was not entered on the Court’s docket and mailed to Plaintiff until Monday, July 20, 2026. See [Doc. 32]. Therefore, the Court deems it served as of July 20, 2026. The Court further notes that the Recommendation was not returned to the Court as undeliverable. Party has objected to the Recommendation and the time to do so has elapsed. In the absence of an objection, the district court may review a magistrate judge’s recommendation under any standard it deems appropriate. See Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It

does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a [magistrate judge’s] factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”). In this matter, the Court has reviewed the Recommendation to satisfy itself that there is “no clear error on the face of the record.”2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment. Based on this review, the Court has concluded that the Recommendation is a correct application of the law to Plaintiff’s allegations. Accordingly, the Recommendation is respectfully ADOPTED. The Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Hazelton, Reyes, and Seidel are DISMISSED without prejudice. However, Plaintiff also names “John and Jane Doe” as Defendants in this case,

[Doc. 1 at 1], though the Court notes the lack of specific allegations related to the Doe Defendants, see [id. at 4–5]. “[P]ursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 10, a caption to a complaint must include the names of all parties.” Culp v. Williams, No. 10-cv-00886-CMA-CBS, 2011 WL 1597686, at *3 (D. Colo. Apr. 27, 2011), aff’d, 456 F. App’x 718 (10th Cir. 2012). The “Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not explicitly allow the naming of fictitious or anonymous parties in a lawsuit,” and for this reason, “‘an action may be dismissed if the defendant is not sufficiently identified to permit service of process.’” Id. (quoting Stratton

2 This standard of review is something less than a “clearly erroneous or . . . contrary to law” standard of review, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which in turn is less than a de novo review, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). v. City of Boston, 731 F. Supp. 42, 45 (D. Mass. 1989)). And a court “should only allow claims against parties whose names are unknown to proceed ‘if the complaint makes allegations specific enough to permit the identity of the party to be ascertained after reasonable discovery.’” Pearson v. Colo. Dep’t of Transp., No. 18-cv-02538-KLM, 2019

WL 3550208, at *4 (D. Colo. Aug. 5, 2019) (quoting Hartley v. Wilfert, 931 F. Supp. 2d 230, 233 (D.D.C. 2013)). In the 15 months since this case was filed, Plaintiff has not identified the Doe Defendants, and the Complaint does not contain any allegations that would help identify the Doe Defendants. See [Doc. 1]. The Court recognizes that Plaintiff is pro se and has not had the benefit of discovery in this case, but the case cannot meaningfully proceed unless Plaintiff identifies the Doe Defendants. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE, on or before September 17, 2026, why his claims against the unidentified Doe Defendants should not be dismissed under Local Rule 41.1 for failure to prosecute and/or failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See

D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.1 (“A judicial officer may issue an order to show cause why a case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with these rules, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or a court order. If good cause is not shown, a district judge . . . may enter an order of dismissal with or without prejudice.”). Plaintiff is advised that if he fails to respond to this Order to Show Cause by the Court's deadline, his claims against the Doe Defendants may be dismissed without prejudice without further notice from the Court. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: (1) The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kathryn A. Starnella [Doc. 32] is ADOPTED; (2) The CDOC Officials’ Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 17] is GRANTED; (3) Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Hazelton, Reyes, and Seidel are DISMISSED without prejudice; (4) |The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Defendants Hazelton, Reyes, and Seidel as Parties to this case; (5) On or before September 17, 2026, Plaintiff shall SHOW CAUSE, in writing, why his claims against the unidentified Doe Defendants should not be dismissed under Local Rule 41.1 for failure to prosecute and/or failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and (6) The Clerk of Court shall mail a copy of this Order to: Nathanael Owens, #176493 Sterling Correctional Facility (SCF) P.O. Box 6000 Sterling, CO 80751 DATED: August 20, 2026 BY THE COURT:

United States District Judge

Nathanael Owens v. Michael Hazelton, in his official and individual capacities, Johnny Reyes, in his individual capacity, Stephen Seidel, in his individual capacity, and John and Jane Does, (D. Colo. 2026).

Pincite

Nathanael Owens v. Michael Hazelton, in his official and individual capacities, Johnny Reyes, in his individual capacity, Stephen Seidel, in his individual capacity, and John and Jane Does (Nathanael Owens v. Michael Hazelton, in his official and individual capacities, Johnny Reyes, in his individual capacity, Stephen Seidel, in his individual capacity, and John and Jane Does) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related