Ramos v. USA
Plaintiff: Leonardo Ramos
Defendant: USA
Case Number: 1:2011cv01073
Filed: April 22, 2011
Court: US District Court for the District of Colorado
Office: Denver Office
County: XX US, Outside State
Presiding Judge: Boyd N. Boland
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
January 25, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 40 ORDER of Dismissal. ORDERED that the amended complaint 19 and the action are dismissed without prejudice. FURTHER ORDERED that any pending motions 36 37 38 are denied as moot. FURTHER ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 1/25/12.(lygsl, )
December 16, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 33 MINUTE ORDER denying 29 Motion for Reconsideration ; granting 30 Motion for Extension of Time, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 12/16/11.(lsw, )
December 1, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 27 ORDER Overruling Objection. ORDERED that the document titled "Objection to Magistrate's Orders Issued November 10th 2011" 26 is construed liberally as an objection filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), and the objection is overruled, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 12/1/11.(lyg, )
November 10, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 25 ORDER Granting Motion for Extension of Time, Denying Motions to Seal and Strike, and Directing Plaintiff to File Second and Final Amended Complaint. ORDERED that the motion titled "Motion Requesting Fourth Extension of Time to Comply With Order to Cure Deficiency of April 29th 2011 Under ECF Rule 5.2(c)" 20 is granted. FURTHER ORDERED that the "Motion to File Exhibit B Mexican Prescription, CBP Receipt Under Seal" 21 is denied. FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall unseal the document docketed as 23 . FURTHER ORDERED that the "Motion to Strike Proposed Amended Complaint [ECF 10-1]" 22 is denied, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 11/10/11.(lygsl, )
November 9, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 24 ORDER denying 18 Motion to Reconsider, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 11/9/11.(lsw, )
August 25, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 17 ORDER. ORDERED that the "Motion of Recusal of All Judges in the District of Colorado for the Specific Matter of the Claim of Unconstitutionality of Local Rule 8.1" 13 and "Motion of Recusal of Senior Judge Lewis T[.] Babcock" [1 6] are denied. FURTHER ORDERED that the "Motion to Reconsider Order Overruling Objection of July 13th 2011" 12 is granted only to the extent Mr. Ramos seeks reconsideration of the 7/13/11 order denying him leave to comply with 28 U.S.C. & #167; 1746 in lieu of the notary requirement for his in forma pauperis motion and to the extent he seeks one final opportunity to comply with the remaining deficiency, i.e., his failure to file his complaint on the proper, Court-approved form. FURTHE R ORDERED that the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 2 is granted. FURTHER ORDERED that the "Motion Requesting Third Extension of Time to Comply With Order to Cure Deficiency of April 29th 2011" 14 is granted for 20 days onl y. FURTHER ORDERED that the "Notice of Claim of Unconstitutionality of Local Rule 8.1" 15 will not be further addressed because the 6/8/11 minute order already informed Mr. Ramos that D.C.COLO.LCivR 8.1A. requires that "[a] pro se party shall use the forms established by the court." ORDERED that Mr. Ramos file an amended complaint on the proper, Court approved form within 20 days from the date of this order, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 8/25/11.(lygsl, )
July 13, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 11 ORDER Overruling Objection. ORDERED that the documents titled "Objection to Magistrate [Judge]'s Orders Issued June 8th 2011" 8 and "Motion to Quash Order to Cure Deficiencies of April 29th 2011" 9 , are construed liberall y as an objection filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1 )(A), and the objection is overruled. FURTHER ORDERED that the "Motion Requesting Second Extension of Time to Comply With Order to Cure Deficiency of April 29th 2011" 10 is gra nted. Plaintiff will be allowed 30 days from the date of this order in which to cure the designated deficiencies. FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is directed to cease filing motions objecting to the Court's April 29 and June 8 orders to cure deficiencies. Any future motions will not be addressed, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 7/13/11.(lyg, )
June 8, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 7 MINUTE ORDER denying Plaintiff's 4 Motion to Waive Local Rule 8.1. Plaintiff's 5 Motion Requesting Extension of Time to Comply with Order to Cure Deficiency of 4/29/11 is GRANTED. Plaintiff has 30 days from the date of this minute order to cure all the deficiencies. Plaintiff's 6 Motion for Leave to Comply with 28 USC 1746 in Lieu of Notary Requirement for Pauperis Affidavit is DENIED as moot, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 6/8/11.(lsw, )
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Colorado District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Ramos v. USA
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Leonardo Ramos
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: USA
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?