United States District Court, D. Colorado
ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ROBERT E. BLACKBURN, District Judge.
This matter is before me on the following: (1) the Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (Doc. 93) Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1) and (6) And/or for Summary Judgment [#100] filed October 17, 2013; (2) the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [#102] filed October 24, 2013; (3) the Second Motion for Partia Summary Judgment Pursuant To Rule 56 [#129] filed March 6, 2014; (4) the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#139] filed August 27, 2014; and (5) the Second Motion for Extension of Time [#146] filed September 23, 2014. I deny the motion for extension of time, approve and adopt the recommendation, grant the motion to dismiss in part and deny it in part, and deny the two motions for partial summary judgment.
The plaintiff is acting pro se. Therefore, I continue to construe his filings generously and with the leniency due pro se litigants, see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th Cir. 2007); Hall v. Belmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972)).
I. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
I address first the Second Motion for Extension of Time [#146] filed by the plaintiff, Shane Johnson. Mr. Johnson, an inmate in the Colorado Department of Corrections, seeks for a second time additional time to file objections to the recommendation of the magistrate judge. On September 10, 2014, Mr. Johnson filed his first motion [#143] for extension of time to file objections, seeking an extension through December 8, 2014. Mr. Johnson noted that the recommendation addresses numerous arguments and legal citations, that he is acting pro se, and his access to a law library is limited to about three hours per week. In addition, he noted other cases he is litigating. The court granted that motion in part, extending the deadline for objections to September 18, 2014. Order [#144]. In that order, the court noted that generally, "the fact that the plaintiff is a litigant in other cases does not constitute good cause for an extension of time." Order [#144], p. 2.
In his second motion for extension of time, Mr. Johnson contends his law library access has been limited to two hours per week, notes the other cases he is litigating, and contends he needs more time "to distinguish cases cited in the R&R." Motion [#146]. In addition, Mr. Johnson says "I have some really good objections and this motion is not for the purposes of delay." Id. He does not specify, even in a summary fashion, the bases for any of his proposed objections.
The facts, issues, and legal authorities addressed in the recommendation [#139] are detailed in the underlying motion [#100] of the defendants, filed October 17, 2013, the 32 page response [#116] of the plaintiff, filed December 27, 2013, and the reply [#120] of the defendants, filed January 22, 2014. With this background, Mr. Johnson has had ample time to familiarize himself with the issues and authorities on which the defendants rely and which are addressed in the recommendation. Given this context, I find that Mr. Johnson has not stated in his motion [#146] good cause for an additional extension of time to file objections to the recommendation. Therefore, his motion for extension of time [#146] is denied.
Because no objection to the recommendation was filed, I review the recommendation only for plain error. See Morales-Fernandez v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 418 F.3d 1116, 1122 (10th Cir. 2005). Finding no error, much less plain error, in the recommendation of the magistrate judge, I find and conclude that the recommendation should be approved and adopted as an order of this court. The recommendation addresses comprehensively the claims of Mr. Johnson and the legal issues surrounding those claims. In the context of civil rights claims asserted by prison inmates, the legal issues raised in the motion to dismiss [#100] and addressed in the recommendation [#139] are neither novel nor controversial and, in this case, do not present any issues that are close or controversial.
Mr. Johnson has spent a substantial period of time in administrative segregation. He challenges in his claim one various procedural aspects of his administrative segregation classification. In claim two, Mr. Johnson alleges that the medical treatment he has received from the defendants, including treatment for hepatitis C, is inadequate and constitutes a violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment. In claim three, Mr. Johnson alleges his rights were violated in relation to notification of Mr. Johnson concerning a detainer filed against him based on an escape charge that was pending against Mr. Johnson. This claim is related to the administrative segregation classification of Mr. Johnson. In claim four, Mr. Johnson claims he was denied adequate telephone access to his defense attorney while the escape charge was pending against Mr. Johnson.
In the recommendation, the magistrate judge examines comprehensively a variety of issues raised by the defendants in their motion to dismiss [#100]. These issues include Eleventh Amendment immunity, injunctive relief, the doctrine of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), the basic allegations which must be made to state a claim against particular defendants, qualified immunity, and exhaustion of administrative remedies. In addition, the magistrate judge cites valid reasons why Mr. Johnson's motions for summary judgment should be denied without prejudice to re-filing. Based on the detailed analysis of the magistrate judge, with which I concur after de novo review, I approve and adopt the recommendation.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the Second Motion for Extension of Time [#146] filed September ...