Davis v. Dove et al

Filing 18

Minute ORDER denying 17 Motion to Delay Proceedings. Mr. Davis continues to have 30 days from the 09/17/09, order granting him leave to proceed, to either pay the $1.00 initial partial filing fee owed in this action or to show cause why he cannot by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 10/06/09.(jjh, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 09-cv-01971-BNB THOMAS L. DAVIS, #20021-039, Plaintiff, v. OFFICER SCOTT DOVE, and OFFICER K. ESTRADA, Defendants. MINUTE ORDER ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE BOYD N. BOLAND This matter is before the Court on the "Motion to Delay Proceedings" that Plaintiff filed with the Court on October 5, 2009 (Doc. # 17). Mr. Davis apparently seeks to stay the instant action for an unspecified amount of time due to his pending transfer to a federal facility in California. Plaintiff further requests that the Court "take charge" of his inmate trust fund account. However, in the September 17, 2009, Order, granting Mr. Davis leave to proceed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915, and directing him to pay a $1.00 initial partial filing fee, the Court informed Mr. Davis that it was his responsibility to make the necessary arrangements to pay the designated fee. Mr. Davis does not explain how the transfer to California affects his ability to pay the fee, and the Court cannot "take charge" of his inmate trust fund account. Accordingly, the Motion (Doc. # 17) is DENIED. Mr. Davis continues to have thirty (30) days from the date of the September 17, 2009, Order granting him leave to proceed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915, to either pay the $1.00 initial partial filing fee owed in this action or to show cause why he cannot. Failure to do so within the time allowed will result in the dismissal of the instant action. Dated: October 6, 2009

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?