Filed: Apr. 01, 2015
Latest Update: Apr. 01, 2015
Summary: ORDER OF ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSURE ROBERT E. BLACKBURN , District Judge . The matter is before the court sua sponte. Following my denial of defendant's motion for summary judgment ( see Order Denying Motion for Summary Judgment [#201] 1 , filed December 16, 2014), plaintiff filed an interlocutory appeal on the issue of qualified immunity ( see Defendant's Notice of Interlocutory Appeal [#204], filed January 5, 2015). At the parties' request, I subsequently stayed the proceedings in
Summary: ORDER OF ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSURE ROBERT E. BLACKBURN , District Judge . The matter is before the court sua sponte. Following my denial of defendant's motion for summary judgment ( see Order Denying Motion for Summary Judgment [#201] 1 , filed December 16, 2014), plaintiff filed an interlocutory appeal on the issue of qualified immunity ( see Defendant's Notice of Interlocutory Appeal [#204], filed January 5, 2015). At the parties' request, I subsequently stayed the proceedings in ..
More
ORDER OF ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSURE
ROBERT E. BLACKBURN, District Judge.
The matter is before the court sua sponte. Following my denial of defendant's motion for summary judgment (see Order Denying Motion for Summary Judgment [#201]1, filed December 16, 2014), plaintiff filed an interlocutory appeal on the issue of qualified immunity (see Defendant's Notice of Interlocutory Appeal [#204], filed January 5, 2015). At the parties' request, I subsequently stayed the proceedings in this case. (See Order Granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Stay of Proceedings Under the Scheduling Order [#210], filed February 3, 2015.)
Reviewing the appellate docket, it appears that briefing has only just begun,2 and no oral argument has yet been set. There is no way of knowing how long it may take for the Tenth Circuit to issue a ruling. (See The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, Filing Your Appeal — Pro Se — Motions, Arguments & Decision ("There is no requirement that the court issue its decision within any particular time frame.") (available at https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/clerk/filing-your-appeal/pro-se/motions-arguments) (last accessed April 1, 2015). Meanwhile, the case remains open (despite the stay) on the court's docket, with motions pending, growing ever more stale.
Given these circumstances, it seems to this court that it is appropriate to administratively close this case pending further developments in the appeal. Concomitantly, all currently pending motions will be denied without prejudice, subject to refiling if the matter is reopened.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That any pending motion, including but not limited to defendant's Motion Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 Regarding Charles Carter, Carl Simpson, Shelley Lesnansky, Natalie Heywood, Captain Ron Saunier, Commander Matt Murray, and Dr. John D. Carver [#198], filed December 1, 2014, is denied without prejudice;
2. That under D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2, this action is closed administratively; and
3. That under D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2, the clerk is directed to close this civil action administratively, subject to reopening for good cause.
