Reuter (PS) v. City of Montrose
Plaintiff: Dianna Grace Reuter
Defendant: City of Montrose
Case Number: 1:2025cv03808
Filed: November 24, 2025
Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
Presiding Judge: Lewis T Babcock
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Other
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on May 18, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
May 18, 2026 Filing 16 MOTION for Relief from Judgment or Order by Plaintiff Dianna Grace Reuter. (eluce, )
April 28, 2026 Opinion or Order Filing 15 MINUTE ORDER as to Dianna Grace Reuter (1). It is ordered that all motions filed pro se by Dianna Reuter on April 23 through April 27, 2026, in the actions identified above are stricken. All of the above-identified actions have been dismissed and are closed. Ms. Reuter is directed to cease filing new documents in her closed cases. By Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 4/28/2026. 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.(ccuen, )
April 23, 2026 Filing 14 STRICKEN. MOTION of Request by Plaintiff Dianna Grace Reuter. (Attachments: #1 Cover Letter, #2 Envelope)(eluce, ) Modified on 4/29/2026 to strike pursuant to ECF #15 MINUTE ORDER (ccuen, ).
February 23, 2026 Opinion or Order Filing 13 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 2/23/2026. Plaintiff's February 17, 2026, Motion for Recusal of Judge (ECF No. #12 ) in this closed action is stricken. Plaintiff previously was warned that further filings in this closed action may be stricken. (See ECF No. #11 ). 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.(ccuen, )
February 17, 2026 Filing 12 MOTION for Recusal of Judge, by Plaintiff Dianna Grace Reuter. (ccuen, )
February 4, 2026 Opinion or Order Filing 11 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 2/4/2026. Plaintiff's February 2, 2026, Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order (ECF No. #10 ) is denied because Plaintiff offers no argument that would justify reopening this case. This action was dismissed and judgment was entered on December 19, 2025. (ECF Nos. #4 , #5 ). Plaintiff's filing entitled "Amended Action" filed February 2, 2026 (ECF No. #9 ) is stricken. Additional filings in this closed action may be stricken. 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.(ccuen, )
February 2, 2026 Filing 10 MOTION for Relief from Judgment or Order, by Plaintiff Dianna Grace Reuter. (ccuen, )
February 2, 2026 Filing 9 STRICKEN. AMENDED ACTION against City of Montrose, filed by Dianna Grace Reuter.(ccuen, ) Modified on 2/4/2026 to Strike pursuant to #11 Order.(ccuen, ).
January 8, 2026 Opinion or Order Filing 8 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 1/8/2026. Plaintiff's December 26, 2025, "Motion of Harmless Error" (ECF No. #6 ) and January 2, 2026, "Plaintiff's Request for Records" (ECF No. #7 ) are denied as moot. The Court dismissed this case without prejudice on December 19, 2025, with final judgment entering the same day. (ECF Nos. #4 , #5 ). This action is closed. Further filings in this closed action may be stricken. 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.(ccuen, )
January 2, 2026 Filing 7 Plaintiff's Request for Records by Plaintiff Dianna Grace Reuter. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(ggill, )
December 26, 2025 Filing 6 MOTION of Harmless Error, by Plaintiff Dianna Grace Reuter. (ccuen, )
December 19, 2025 Filing 5 JUDGMENT re: #4 Order of Dismissal by Clerk on 12/19/2025. 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. (ggill, )
December 19, 2025 Opinion or Order Filing 4 ORDER OF DISMISSAL. ORDERED that the Motion to Request Leave to File Action (ECF No. #2 ) is denied and the action is dismissed. FURTHER ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied without prejudice to the filing of a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. By Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 12/19/2025. 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. (ggill, )
November 24, 2025 Filing 3 Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Richard T. Gurley for Initial Review pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 8.1 (a). Text Only Entry. (echa, )
November 24, 2025 Filing 2 MOTION to Request Leave to File Action by Plaintiff Dianna Grace Reuter. (echa, )
November 24, 2025 Filing 1 COMPLAINT against City of Montrose (Filing Fee: $405.00, Receipt Number:116198), filed by Dianna Grace Reuter. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Receipt)(echa, )

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 this case: Reuter (PS) v. City of Montrose
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Dianna Grace Reuter
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 [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: City of Montrose
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 [ 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?