Burnham v. City and County of Denver
| Arthur Anthony Burnham |
| City and County of Denver and Denver Health and Hospital Authority |
| 1:2025cv03184 |
| October 9, 2025 |
| U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado |
| Daniel D Domenico |
| Susan Prose |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other |
| 42 U.S.C. § 12112 American with Disabilities Act (ADA- Discrimination) |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 1, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 63
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Susan Prose on April 1, 2026. With deference to Plaintiff's pro se status, the court GRANTS the #49 Motion for Leave to Amend. The court recognizes the concerns raised by Defendant at ECF No. #62 and takes those concerns into consideration, but finds, inter alia, that any prejudice to Defendant that might result from Plaintiff being permitted to file an amended complaint would be minimal. First, Defendant largely opposes the #49 Motion to Amend based on futility, but the Court generally finds that such arguments are better and more efficiently addressed after the plaintiff's amended complaint is in place and the defendant has had an opportunity to revise its motion to dismiss to address the revised allegations, if it chooses to file such a motion. See Stender v. Cardwell, No. 07-cv-02503-WJM-MJW, 2011 WL 1235414, at *3 (D. Colo. Apr. 1, 2011); Gen. Steel Domestic Sales, LLC v. Steelwise, LLC, No. 07-cv-01145-DME-KMT, 2008 WL 2520423, at *4 (D. Colo. June 20, 2008) (noting that defendant's futility argument appears to place the cart before the horse). Second, as Defendant acknowledges, the proposed complaint is "not appreciably different" than the currently operative complaint, making Defendant's burden in briefing any renewed motion to dismiss relatively light. And third, although Defendant notes that the proposed amended complaint includes a "new" cause of action for retaliation, as Defendant also acknowledges, Plaintiff had previously included such a claim in an earlier version of the complaint; accordingly, the court recognizes that as a pro se litigant, Plaintiff may have only omitted this cause of action due to a mistake of law or fact, and--again, with deference to Plaintiff's pro se status--finds it appropriate to give Plaintiff a final opportunity to plead this claim. Therefore, the Clerk's Office is requested to file ECF No. [49-1] as the operative Complaint. Plaintiff is advised that no further opportunities to amend will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances. Given that the court grants the #49 Motion for Leave to Amend, the court also respectfully RECOMMENDS that the #33 Motion to Dismiss be DENIED without prejudice as moot. Objections to this order are due within fourteen days. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Text Only Entry (sbplc6, )
|
| Filing 62 OBJECTIONS to #49 MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify #38 MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify #29 MOTION for Order to by Defendant City and County of Denver. (Murphy, David) |
|
Filing 61
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Susan Prose on 03/26/2026. This matter is before the court regarding Plaintiff's #49 Renewed Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint, #51 Renewed Motion for Early Neutral Evaluation or Settlement Conference, and #54 Unopposed Motion for Order Directing Service by United States Marshals Service on Newly Added Defendant.In his #49 Renewed Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint, Plaintiff filed his motion on March 8, 2026, including a certificate of conferral stating he sent correspondence to counsel for the defendant on March 8, 2026, and further that "as of the time of filing, Defendant has not indicated agreement to the requested relief". The court advises Plaintiff that diligent conferral necessarily requires allowing the opposing parties time to review and respond, and cautions that merely notifying opposing parties of a pending motion on the same date it is filed does not constitute conferral. Defendant's response to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint is due March 30, 2026. If Defendant does not oppose Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint, the court respectfully requests Defendant file a notice of non-opposition to the motion by the same date.Plaintiff's #51 Motion to Expedite Early Neutral Evaluation or Settlement Conference is again DENIED without prejudice for failure to confer. Although self-styling his #51 Motion as an "emergency" motion, Plaintiff has not explained whether he made any attempt to confer with Defendants whatsoever, nor has he addressed why his circumstances are so time-sensitive that he could not confer with Defendants. Indeed, Plaintiff waited nearly a week after the court denied his former Motion to Expedite to file this renewed motion, but he does not address whether he made any attempt to reach out to Defendants during this time. Accordingly, the #51 Motion is denied, and the court notes that it is highly unlikely to grant any renewed motion to expedite that lacks a certificate of conferral.Finally, Plaintiff is proceeding in this matter under 28 U.S.C. 1915 (See ECF No. #6 ). Upon filing of an appropriate summons request in this case, the Clerk's Office will request the United States Marshal Service to serve process. Accordingly, Plaintiff's #54 Unopposed Motion for Order Directing Service by United States Marshals Service on Newly Added Defendant is DENIED as moot. Text Only Entry (sjeff)
|
|
Filing 60
ORDER: At Doc. 47 , United States Magistrate Judge Susan Prose recommends denying without prejudice as moot Defendant's Motion to Dismiss at Doc. #24 in light of the corrected second amended complaint. The recommendation states that any objections must be filed by March 19, 2026, i.e., within fourteen days after its service on the parties. Doc. 47 . The recommendation was served on March 5, 2026, and no party has objected to it. In the absence of a timely objection, I may review a magistrate judge's recommendation under any standard I deem appropriate. Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150, 154 (1985)). In this matter, I have reviewed the recommendation to satisfy myself that there is "no clear error on the face of the record." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) Advisory Committee Notes. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Prose, Doc. 47 , is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, Doc. #24 , is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT. SO ORDERED by Chief Judge Daniel D. Domenico on 3/26/2026. For all non-e-filer pro se parties, a copy of this document has been sent via U.S. Mail to the mailing address of record. Text Only Entry (dddlc12)
|
| Filing 59 SUMMONS REQUEST as to Denver Health and Hospital Authority re 58 Administrative Notice, by Plaintiff Arthur Anthony Burnham. (Burnham, Arthur) |
| Filing 58 Administrative Notice: The summons submitted will not be issued due to an incomplete case caption. The summonses must list all parties; "et al." cannot substitute the listing of all parties named in the case per Fed Civ. Rule 4. Please file completed summons for issuance using the event "Summons Request." (Text Only Entry) (jrobe, ) |
| Filing 57 SUMMONS REQUEST as to Denver Health and Hospital Authority re 56 Administrative Notice by Plaintiff Arthur Anthony Burnham. (Burnham, Arthur) |
|
Filing 55
ORDER REFERRING MOTION: #54 Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify for Order Directing Service by United States Marshals Service filed by Arthur Anthony Burnham. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Susan Prose by Chief Judge Daniel D. Domenico on 3/18/2026. For all non-e-filer pro se parties, a copy of this document has been sent via U.S. Mail to the mailing address of record. Text Only Entry (dddlc12)
|
| Filing 54 Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify for Order Directing Service by United States Marshals Service by Plaintiff Arthur Anthony Burnham. (Burnham, Arthur) |
| Filing 56 Administrative Notice: #53 Summons Request. The summons #53 submitted has incorrect caption and will not be issued. Please file the completed summons for issuance using the event "Summons Request". (Text Only Entry) (ggill, ) |
| Filing 53 SUMMONS REQUEST as to Denver Health and Hospital Authority by Plaintiff Arthur Anthony Burnham. (Burnham, Arthur) |
|
Filing 52
ORDER REFERRING MOTION: #51 Renewed MOTION to Expedite Renewed Motion for Early Neutral Evaluation / Settlement Conference filed by Arthur Anthony Burnham. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Susan Prose by Chief Judge Daniel D. Domenico on 3/11/2026. For all non-e-filer pro se parties, a copy of this document has been sent via U.S. Mail to the mailing address of record. Text Only Entry (dddlc12)
|
| Filing 51 Renewed MOTION to Expedite Renewed Motion for Early Neutral Evaluation / Settlement Conference by Plaintiff Arthur Anthony Burnham. (Burnham, Arthur) |
|
Filing 50
ORDER REFERRING MOTION: #49 MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify #38 MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify #29 MOTION for Order to filed by Arthur Anthony Burnham. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Susan Prose by Chief Judge Daniel D. Domenico on 3/9/2026. For all non-e-filer pro se parties, a copy of this document has been sent via U.S. Mail to the mailing address of record. Text Only Entry (dddlc12)
|
| Filing 49 MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify #38 MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify #29 MOTION for Order to by Plaintiff Arthur Anthony Burnham. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 Proposed Third Amended Verified Complaint)(Burnham, Arthur) |
| Filing 48 Corrected Second AMENDED Verified COMPLAINT against City and County of Denver, Denver Health and Hospital Authority, filed by Arthur Anthony Burnham. (Pursuant to ECF (46) Order).(ccuen, ) |
| Filing 47 RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Susan Prose on 3/5/2026. In light of the Corrected Second Amended Complaint, this court RECOMMENDS that Defendant's #24 Motion to Dismiss be DENIED without prejudice as moot. Objections to R&R due by 3/19/2026 For all non-e-filer pro se parties, a copy of this document has been sent via U.S. Mail to the mailing address of record. Text Only Entry (sjeff) |
|
Filing 46
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Susan Prose on 03/05/2026. This matter is before the court on a number of motions filed by pro se Plaintiff. Defendant has filed a #33 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Corrected Second Amended Complaint, acknowledging that it responds to the version of Plaintiff's Complaint docketed at ECF No. [29-1] as the Operative Complaint. Accordingly, the court deems Plaintiff's #28 Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint and #29 Notice of Filing Corrected Second Amended Complaint and Motion to Withdraw ECF No. 27 to be unopposed. Accordingly, Plaintiff's #28 Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint and #29 Notice of Filing Corrected Second Amended Complaint are GRANTED. The Clerk's Office is directed to detach Plaintiff's Corrected Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 29-1] and re-file as the operative complaint. Further, the Amended Complaint docketed at ECF No. 27 is hereby WITHDRAWN. In light of the Corrected Second Amended Complaint, this court RECOMMENDS that Defendant's #24 Motion to Dismiss be DENIED without prejudice as moot.Plaintiff's #31 Motion for Early Neutral Evaluation or Settlement Conference and #38 Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint do not include a certificate of conferral as required by D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(a). Although Plaintiff is pro se, he is nonetheless obligated to comply with the court's local rules. See Hendrix v. Employer's Reinsurance Corp., 26 F. App'x 873, 874 (10th Cir. 2002) ("Pro se litigants must follow the rules of procedure, including local rules."). These motions are, therefore, DENIED without prejudice to re-filing, if necessary, after conferring with Defendant. Plaintiff is advised that future motions lacking a certificate of conferral may be stricken. Finally, Plaintiff has renewed his request for appointment of counsel (ECF No. #44 ). This court addressed the issue of pro bono counsel in its November 11, 2025 order (See ECF No. 17). Accordingly, Plaintiff's #44 Motion to Appoint Pro Bono Counsel is DENIED without prejudice as duplicative. The court reiterates its finding that, at this point, it is too early for this court to assess the merit of Plaintiff's claims, which is one of the factors that the court is to consider under the local rule establishing the pro bono program, D.C.COLO.LAttyR 15. Objections to this order are due within fourteen days. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). For all non-e-filer pro se parties, a copy of this document has been sent via U.S. Mail to the mailing address of record. Text Only Entry(sjeff)
|
|
Filing 45
ORDER REFERRING MOTION: #44 MOTION to Appoint Pro Bono Counsel filed by Arthur Anthony Burnham. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Susan Prose by Judge Daniel D. Domenico on 3/2/2026. For all non-e-filer pro se parties, a copy of this document has been sent via U.S. Mail to the mailing address of record. Text Only Entry (dddlc12)
|
| Filing 44 MOTION to Appoint Pro Bono Counsel by Plaintiff Arthur Anthony Burnham. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit Declaration of Arthur Burnham with Exhibit A (Doctor's Letter))(Burnham, Arthur) |
|
Filing 43
ORDER granting #42 Motion to Withdraw as Counsel. The Clerk of Court is instructed to terminate attorney Holly D. Coulehan, as counsel of record, and to remove her from the electronic certificate of mailing. Attorney David L. Murphy will continue representing Defendant. SO ORDERED by Judge Daniel D. Domenico on 2/24/2026. For all non-e-filer pro se parties, a copy of this document has been sent via U.S. Mail to the mailing address of record. Text Only Entry (dddlc12)
|
| Filing 42 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Defendant City and County of Denver. (Coulehan, Holly) |
| Filing 41 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by David L. Murphy on behalf of City and County of DenverAttorney David L. Murphy added to party City and County of Denver(pty:dft) (Murphy, David) |
|
Filing 40
ORDER REFERRING MOTION: #38 MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify #29 MOTION for Order filed by Arthur Anthony Burnham. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Susan Prose by Judge Daniel D. Domenico on 2/23/2026. For all non-e-filer pro se parties, a copy of this document has been sent via U.S. Mail to the mailing address of record. Text Only Entry (dddlc12)
|
| Filing 39 REPLY to Response to #38 MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify #29 MOTION for Order to filed by Plaintiff Arthur Anthony Burnham. (Burnham, Arthur) |
| Filing 38 MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify #29 MOTION for Order to by Plaintiff Arthur Anthony Burnham. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 Proposed Third Amended Verified Complaint)(Burnham, Arthur) |
| Filing 37 REPLY to Response to #33 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint filed by Defendant City and County of Denver. (Coulehan, Holly) |
| Filing 36 OBJECTIONS to #35 Response to Motion to Plaintiff's Request for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint by Defendant City and County of Denver. (Coulehan, Holly) |
| Filing 35 RESPONSE to #33 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff Arthur Anthony Burnham. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit, #2 Exhibit)(Burnham, Arthur) |
|
Filing 34
ORDER REFERRING MOTION: #33 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint filed by City and County of Denver. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Susan Prose by Judge Daniel D. Domenico on 1/23/2026. For all non-e-filer pro se parties, a copy of this document has been sent via U.S. Mail to the mailing address of record. Text Only Entry (dddlc12)
|
| Filing 33 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint by Defendant City and County of Denver. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Declaration of David Dalton)(Coulehan, Holly) |
|
Filing 32
ORDER REFERRING MOTIONS: #28 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Corrected Second Amended Complaint filed by Arthur Anthony Burnham; #29 Plaintiff's Notice of Filing Corrected Second Amended Complaint and Motion for Leave to Withdraw ECF No. #27 filed by Arthur Anthony Burnham; and #31 Plaintiff's Motion for Early Neutral Evaluation or Settlement Conference filed by Arthur Anthony Burnham.Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Susan Prose by Judge Daniel D. Domenico on 1/22/2026. For all non-e-filer pro se parties, a copy of this document has been sent via U.S. Mail to the mailing address of record. Text Only Entry (dddlc1, )
|
| Filing 31 MOTION for Order to Refer Case for Early Neutral Evaluation or Settlement Conference by Plaintiff Arthur Anthony Burnham. (Burnham, Arthur) |
| Filing 30 NOTICE re #29 MOTION for Order to Plaintiff Residency Statement and Clarify Operative Pleading by Plaintiff Arthur Anthony Burnham (Burnham, Arthur) |
| Filing 29 Plaintiff's NOTICE of Filing Corrected Second Amended Complaint and MOTION for Leave to Withdraw ECF No. #27 filed by Arthur Anthony Burnham. (Attachments: #1 Corrected Second Amended Verified Complaint)(Burnham, Arthur) Modified on 1/9/2026 to correct title (ggill, ). |
| Filing 28 Motion for Leave to File AMENDED COMPLAINT against City and County of Denver, filed by Arthur Anthony Burnham. (Attachments: #1 Declaration In Support of Motion, #2 Second Amended Complaint)(Burnham, Arthur) Modified to correct event on 1/13/2026 (jrobe, ). |
| Filing 27 **WITHDRAWN** AMENDED COMPLAINT against City and County of Denver, filed by Arthur Anthony Burnham. (Attachments: #1 Motion Email Service, #2 Notice Hospitalization, #3 Notice Mooting 12(b)(6))(Burnham, Arthur) Modified on 3/5/2026 to indicate withdrawn per ECF No. 46 (sjeff). |
| Filing 26 Administrative Notice: Summons submitted at ECF #20 will not be issued. The named party has already entered an appearance. (Text Only Entry) (cmadr, ) |
|
Filing 25
ORDER REFERRING MOTION: #24 MOTION to Dismiss filed by City and County of Denver. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Susan Prose by Judge Daniel D. Domenico on 12/16/25. For all non-e-filer pro se parties, a copy of this document has been sent via U.S. Mail to the mailing address of record. Text Only Entry (dddlc12)
|
| Filing 24 MOTION to Dismiss by Defendant City and County of Denver. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit A of David Dalton)(Coulehan, Holly) |
|
Filing 23
ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Susan Prose. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) and (b), this case is referred to the assigned United States Magistrate Judge to (1) convene a scheduling conference under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) and enter a scheduling order meeting the requirements of Local Civ. R. 16.2, (2) conduct such status conferences and issue such orders necessary for compliance with the scheduling order, including amendments or modifications of the scheduling order upon a showing of good cause, (3) hear and determine pretrial matters, including discovery and other non-dispositive motions, (4) conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings, and submit proposed findings of fact and recommendations for rulings on dispositive motions, and (5) pursuant to Local Civ. R. 16.6 and at the discretion of the Magistrate Judge, convene such early neutral evaluation and/or settlement conferences and direct related procedures as may facilitate resolution of this case without the necessity of a motion or prior authorization of the undersigned. SO ORDERED by Judge Daniel D. Domenico on 11/20/2025. For all non-e-filer pro se parties, a copy of this document has been sent via U.S. Mail to the mailing address of record. Text Only Entry. (rkeec)
|
| Filing 22 CASE REASSIGNED Pursuant to #21 Consent to Jurisdiction of Magistrate Judge. Case randomly reassigned to Judge Daniel D. Domenico and drawn to Magistrate Judge Susan Prose. All parties do not consent. All future pleadings should be designated as 25-cv-03184-DDD. (Text Only Entry) (ccuen, ) |
| Filing 21 CONSENT to Jurisdiction of Magistrate Judge by Defendant City and County of Denver All parties do not consent.. (Coulehan, Holly) |
| Filing 20 SUMMONS REQUEST as to City and County of Denver by Plaintiff Arthur Anthony Burnham. (Burnham, Arthur) |
| Filing 19 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Holly D. Coulehan on behalf of City and County of DenverAttorney Holly D. Coulehan added to party City and County of Denver(pty:dft) (Coulehan, Holly) |
| Filing 18 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by City and County of Denver. City and County of Denver waiver sent on 10/15/2025, answer due 12/15/2025. (Coulehan, Holly) |
|
Filing 17
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Susan Prose on November 11, 2025. Plaintiff's #14 Motion to Appoint Counsel is DENIED without prejudice to refiling after Plaintiff's case moves forward. At this point, it is too early for this court to assess the merit of Plaintiff's claims, which is one of the factors that the court is to consider under the local rule establishing the pro bono program. D.C.COLO.LAttyR 15. Plaintiff's #15 Motion is duplicative of Plaintiff's #14 Motion and appears to have been filed mistakenly. Accordingly, the #15 Motion is DENIED without prejudice as duplicative. Plaintiff's #16 Motion for Default is DENIED without prejudice as premature. Plaintiff filed his #13 Amended Complaint on October 20, 2025, only eighteen days before moving for default judgment; accordingly, the deadline for the defendant to file a responsive pleading had not elapsed despite Plaintiff's assertions. Furthermore, Plaintiff has not indicated that he served or attempted to serve the City and County of Denver with the #13 Amended Complaint, the operative complaint in this matter. Each of these reasons provides independent procedural grounds for denying Plaintiff's #16 Motion. Relatedly, without evaluating whether Plaintiff's #12 Certificate of Service satisfies applicable procedural requirements, the court notes that this #12 Certificate only pertains to the initial complaint, not the #13 Amended Complaint. The court also notes that Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 6, and therefore all defendants are to be served via an officer of the court, typically by the United States Marshals Service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. 1915(d). While the act of serving a defendant is to be done by a court officer, a plaintiff must provide sufficient information for the officer to serve a defendant. See, e.g., Lang v. Reed, No. 19-cv-01558-KLM, 2019 WL 13402012, at *1 (D. Colo. Nov. 15, 2019); see also Fields v. Okla. State Penitentiary, 511 F.3d 1109, 1113 (10th Cir. 2007) ("[T]he Marshal is not charged with finding a defendant who has moved without providing an accessible forwarding address."). Furthermore, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides that "[i]f a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court, on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff, must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time." Plaintiff must provide sufficient information to allow the Marshals or another court officer to serve the unserved defendants by November 28, 2025. Text Only Entry (sbplc6, )
|
| Filing 16 MOTION for Default Judgment as to by Plaintiff Arthur Anthony Burnham. (Burnham, Arthur) |
| Filing 15 MOTION for Default Judgment as to by Plaintiff Arthur Anthony Burnham. (Burnham, Arthur) |
| Filing 14 MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Plaintiff Arthur Anthony Burnham. (Attachments: #1 Doctor's letter)(Burnham, Arthur) |
| Filing 13 AMENDED COMPLAINT against City and County of Denver, filed by Arthur Anthony Burnham.(Burnham, Arthur) |
| Filing 12 CERTIFICATE of Service by Email by Clerk of Court re: #1 Complaint for Service of Process on Denver County. (ccuen, ) |
| Filing 11 Conventionally Submitted Material : Flash Drive re: Notice of Conventional Filing #10 by Plaintiff Arthur Burnham. Conventional Material placed in Clerk's Office Oversized Area A-4-1. Text Only Entry. (agryan) |
| Filing 10 NOTICE of Conventional Filing by Plaintiff Arthur Burnham (agryan) |
| Filing 9 Magistrate Judge consent form issued pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 40.1, direct assignment of civil actions to full time magistrate judges. (agryan) |
|
Filing 8
ORDER Drawing Case. After review pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 8.1(a), the court has determined that this case does not appear to be appropriate for summary dismissal. Therefore, the case will be drawn to a presiding judge and, if applicable, to a magistrate judge. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 8.1(c). Accordingly, this case is randomly reassigned to Magistrate Judge Susan Prose for all further proceedings. All future pleadings should be designated as 25-cv-03184-SBP, by Magistrate Judge Richard T. Gurley on 10/14/2025. For all non-e-filer pro se parties, a copy of this document has been sent via U.S. Mail to the mailing address of record. (agryan)
|
| Filing 7 NOTICE OF PRO SE E-FILING PRIVILEGES: Plaintiff, Arthur Burnham, sought and received e-filing privileges on 10/10/2025. All further service will be effectuated electronically via CM/ECF to the email address of record.(Text Only Entry) (dgumb, ) |
|
Filing 6
ORDER Granting Leave to Proceed Under 28 U.S.C. 1915. It is ordered that the Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form) (ECF No. #3 ) is granted. The United States Marshals Service shall serve process on any remaining defendant(s) for whom personal service is required if the case is later drawn to a district judge or a magistrate judge under D.C.COLO.LCivR 8.1(c), by Magistrate Judge Richard T. Gurley on 10/9/2025. For all non-e-filer pro se parties, a copy of this document has been sent via U.S. Mail to the mailing address of record.(agryan)
|
|
Filing 5
MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Richard T. Gurley on 09 October 2025. Plaintiff submitted a "Pro Se Motion for Leave to File EC/CFM" (ECF No. #2 ). The motion is denied without prejudice to Plaintiff following the proper procedure to be granted e-filing privileges. If Plaintiff wishes to file electronically, he must become an efiler by following the steps posted on the Court's website www.cod.uscourts.gov under the tab "Representing Yourself" in the section "ProSe E-Filer Information." For all non-e-filer pro se parties, a copy of this document has been sent via U.S. Mail to the mailing address of record.(agryan)
|
| Filing 4 Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Richard T. Gurley for Initial Review pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 8.1 (a). Text Only Entry. (eluce, ) |
| Filing 3 Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. by Plaintiff Arthur Burnham. (eluce, ) |
| Filing 2 PRO SE MOTION for Leave to File EC/CFM by Plaintiff Arthur Burnham. (eluce, ) |
| Filing 1 VERIFIED COMPLAINT against City and County of Denver, filed by Arthur Burnham.(eluce, ) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
