Dorn v. Carpenter

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Raymond P. Moore Civil Action No. 20-cv-02103-RM-KLM THOMAS JAMES DORN, Plaintiff, v. VERNA CARPENTER, Judge, JEFFERSON COUNTY COURT, and CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________ ORDER ______________________________________________________________________________ This matter is before the Court on “Plaintiff’s Response to Order” (ECF No. 35) which was filed in this case and Plaintiff’s other case, Dorn v. Avery, 20-cv-01883-RM-KLM (the “Avery Action”). Defendants Judge Carpenter and Jefferson County Court (collectively, “Jeffco Defendants”) have filed a response. (ECF No. 36.) Because Plaintiff’s Response seeks relief, and being mindful that Plaintiff proceeds pro se,1 the Court construes the Response as a motion. So construed, the motion is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s Response is not a model of clarity. As Jeffco Defendants note, there is no outstanding order, so it is unclear to what order Plaintiff is responding. Regardless, Plaintiff apparently seeks an injunction against the Jeffco Defendants and the Avery Action defendants which would cover New York, New Jersey, and Colorado. But, Plaintiff fails to show the requirements for injunctive relief are met. Free the Nipple-Fort Collins v. City of Fort Collins, The Court construes Plaintiff’s filings liberally because he proceeds pro se. Nonetheless, the Tenth Circuit has “has repeatedly insisted that pro se parties follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.” Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

Colo., 916 F.3d 792, 797 (10th Cir. 2019) (setting forth requirements for typical preliminary- injunction and for disfavored injunctions). Plaintiff also fails to show that the Court may enjoin nonparties to this action, 1.e., defendants from the Avery Action. See Com. Sec. Bank v. Walker Bank & Tr. Co., 456 F.2d 1352, 1354 (10th Cir. 1972) (“To enjoin an act, the court must have jurisdiction of the person so enjoined.”). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs Response to Order, construed as a motion, is DENIED.

DATED this 17th day of May, 2021.

BY THE COURT: \ United States District Judge