Pickering v. Corizon Health Inc et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF WYOMING
RANDY PICKERING also known as Randy
Ray Pickering,
Plaintiff,
vs. 	Case No. 2:22-CV-00153-ABJ
CORIZON HEALTH INC also known as Yes
Care also known as Tehum Care, MARK
WATT individually, MARY MORENO
individually, JOEY REINHART also known
as Mrs Reinhart, KATIE ALDRICH
individually,
Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ORDER
“For an In Person Justice Computer Screen Visit or Physically with Respected Justices and
Habeas Claim Instanter Habeas Petition” [ECF No. 148]
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Order “For an In Person Justice Computer Screen
Visit or Physically with Respected Justices and Habeas Claim Instanter Habeas Petition”
(“Motion”). ECF No. 148. The Court, having reviewed the Motion, the case file, and being
otherwise fully advised in this matter, FINDS that the Motion should be DENIED.
The Motion itself is concerning and has a level of incomprehensible gibberish that is
tantamount to random rantings by Plaintiff. The Motion encompasses three pages and begins its
request with “Dear supreme court justices” and continues to talk about being “under attack natured
habeas[.]” Id. at 1-2. The Court recognizes Plaintiff represents himself, and therefore the Court
must construe his filings liberally. U.S. v. Hald, 8 F.4th 932, 949, n. 10 (10th Cir. 2021) (A pro se
party’s filings must be held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys); Johnson
9:45 am, 6/13/24
FILED
Margaret Botkins
Clerk of Court
Case 2:22-cv-00153-ABJ Document 149 Filed 06/13/24 Page 1 of 3

2
v. Johnson, 466 F.3d 1213, 1214 (10th Cir. 2006); Sheridan v. U.S., 214 Fed. Appx. 857, 858 (10th
Cir. 2007). To the Court’s best liberal interpretation, it appears the Motion is requesting the Court
order Plaintiff be moved from Wyoming’s Department of Corrections to Colorado’s Department
of Corrections.
If a pro se party’s filing can reasonably be read to state a valid request, the court should do
so despite a pro se litigant’s “failure to cite proper legal authority, his confusion of various legal
theories, 	his 	poor 	syntax 	and 	sentence 	construction, 	or 	his 	unfamiliarity 	with 	pleading
requirements.” Id. at 859 (quoting Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991)). Yet,
“it is not . . .the ‘proper function of the district court to assume the role of advocate for the pro se
litigant.’” Rigler v. Lampert, 248 F.Supp.3d 1224, 1232 (D. Wyo. 2017) (quoting Hall v. Bellmon,
935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991)).
As previously noted in the Court’s Orders on March 27, 2024 [ECF No. 147], March 7,
2024 [ECF No. 145], January 29, 2024 [ECF No. 142], and January 11, 2024 [ECF No. 139]; and
the Court’s Notice Regarding Bankruptcy Stay dated January 24, 2024 [ECF No. 140], this case
is in an automatic stay based on Defendant Corizon Health, Inc. filing for bankruptcy in the
Southern District of Texas [ECF No. 71]. The Court then extended that stay to the other
non-bankrupt defendants, as explained in the September 20, 2023 Order [ECF No. 128] by the
Honorable Alan B. Johnson. When a bankruptcy stay is in effect, the Court is prevented from
ruling on any pending requests within in the case.
Case 2:22-cv-00153-ABJ Document 149 Filed 06/13/24 Page 2 of 3

3
Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion at ECF No. 148 is hereby DENIED without prejudice. The
Plaintiff may refile his Motion once the bankruptcy stay is lifted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 13th day of June 2024.
____________________________________
STEPHANIE A. HAMBRICK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
______	____	____ _____	_ ________	__ _______
Case 2:22-cv-00153-ABJ Document 149 Filed 06/13/24 Page 3 of 3