Vasquez v. Tafoya-Lucero

• Court: District Court, D. New Mexico
• Decided: May 2, 2022
• Docket: 1:20-cv-00612
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

ROBERT VENCENT VASQUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v. No. 20-cv-0612 RB/KRS

GEO GROUP INC., et al,

Defendants.

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Issue Notice and Waiver of Service Form to the United States Attorney General, (Doc. 17), and Motion for Extension of Time to File Responses, Replies and Objections, (Doc. 19). Plaintiff is incarcerated and was proceeding pro se until April 29, 2022, when counsel entered an appearance on Plaintiff’s behalf. (Doc. 36). Plaintiff does not bring claims against the United States Attorney General and does not explain why he requests that notice and a waiver of service form be issued to the United States Attorney General. Because Plaintiff’s allegations do not link the United States Attorney General to his asserted claims, the Court will deny his Motion to Issue Notice and Waiver of Service Form to the United States Attorney General, (Doc. 17). See, e.g., Mitchell v. Maynard, 80 F.3d 1433, 1441 (10th Cir. 1996) (explaining that to succeed on a civil rights claim, a plaintiff must allege some personal involvement by a defendant in the constitutional violation); Butler v. City of Norman, 992 F.2d 1053, 1055 (10th Cir. 1993) (same). In Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time, he asks for an extra 30 days to file all responses, replies, and objections in this case because he must use the U.S. postal mail to file documents, and because he is in segregation and has only limited access to a law library. (Doc. 19). Since Plaintiff has recently obtained counsel, the Court finds that this Motion is now moot. Counsel may seek extensions of time, if necessary, as this case progresses. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Issue Notice and Waiver of Service Form to the United States Attorney General, (Doc. 17), is DENIED, and Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File Responses, Replies and Objections, (Doc. 19), is DENIED as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED.

KEVIN R. SWEAZEA UNITED STAGES MAGISTRATE JUDGE