Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Collett v. State

United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division

February 26, 2019

NATHAN SAMUEL COLLETT, et al. Plaintiffs,
v.
STATE OF UTAH, et al., Defendants.

          Dee Benson District Judge.

          MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

          PAUL M. WARNER CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         District Judge Dee Benson referred this case to Chief Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).[1] The court recognizes that plaintiffs Nathan Samuel Collett (“Collett”), and Richita Hackford and Opal Hackford (together, the “Hackfords”) (Collett and the Hackfords are referred to collectively as the “Plaintiffs”) have been permitted to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (“IFP Statute”).[2] The court also recognizes that Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se in this case. Consequently, the court will construe Plaintiffs' pleadings liberally. See, e.g., Ledbetter v. City of Topeka, 318 F.3d 1183, 1187 (10th Cir. 2003).

         BACKGROUND

         This case was consolidated with Hackford v. State of Utah, No. 2:14-cv-00873.[3]“Consolidation does not result in a merger of separate suits into a single cause of action.” Payne v. Tr i -State Careflight, LLC, 327 F.R.D. 433, 449 (D.N.M. 2018). “[T]he actions do not lose their separate identity; the parties to one action do not become parties to the other. . . . Instead, consolidation is an artificial link forged by a court for the administrative convenience of the parties, it fails to erase the fact that, underneath consolidation's façade, lie two individual cases.” Id. (quoting Chaara v. Intel Corp., 410 F.Supp.2d 1080, 1089, 1094 (D.N.M. 2005)) (internal quotations omitted). The complaints filed by Plaintiffs are substantially similar. However, neither complaint has superseded the other, and the court treats them individually for purposes of this order.

         Collett's complaint purports to bring claims against the named defendants in this case for “Child Endangerment, Willful Abduction, and Withholding, and Separation of Minor Children from” Collett, their father.[4] The complaint also recites a list of other claims Collett purports to bring against individual defendants.[5] These claims are as follows:

1. “deprivation and removal from Plaintiffs [sic] home, by BIA officer Wasp (Wass) Chapoose”;
2. “unlawful issuance of Ex Parte Temporary Protective Order, Protective Order, Child Custody Order including unlawful taking of hair samples for drug testing on all four minor children” against “Cleve Hatch, Ute Social Service attorney”;
3. “unlawful enforcement of Supervised Visitation Order by Cleve Hatch Ute Social Service state attorney without legal authority to do so” against “Daniel Roper, Ute Family Service Counselor”;
4. “abduction an[d] kidnapping and assault with intent to cause physical bodily harm and injury to the Plaintiff Nathan Samuel Collett, unlawful impound of vehicles, ” against “Defendants' State of Utah ‘Roosevelt Police Chief Rick Harrison, Roosevelt Police Detective Pete Butcher, Roosevelt Police officers Casey Ralphs, Matt Molay, and Utah Highway Patrol officer Luke Stradinger”;
5. “assault with intent to cause physical bodily harm and injury to the Plaintiff Nathan Samuel Collett” against “Duchesne County Jail Prior Sheriff's Deputy Wallace Hendricks”;
6. against “COP-Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, COP-President's one man government, by and through its corporate arrogates memberships involvement in the creation and drafting of the Ute Partition and Termination Act of 1954, []COP-as a holder of 800 Ute Distribution Stock-Shares, under the Act of 1954 a as Mormon State government, being the majority of state, county and city employees within the Uinta Valley & Ouray Reservation;”
7. against the “Ute Indian Tribe for falsely misleading and representing itself as a federal tribe, for the taking of Federal Indian Monies under Federal Services & Programs for which the state Utes are not eligible to be receiving, a holder of 820 Stock-Shares in Ute Distribution Corporation;” and,
8. “willful abduction and kidnapping of Plaintiffs four minor children and for willful removal of Plaintiff from his home” against “BIA ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.