Handy v. City of Sheridan et al
ORDER Denying Reinstatement of Case and Dismissing Complaint and Action. ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Court to Re-Open Action 23 is denied. FURTHER ORDERED that the Complaint and action are dismissed without prejudice. FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Amend Complaint 20 is denied as moot. FURTHER ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 4/2/12.(lygsl, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 11-cv-01284-LTB
WYATT T. HANDY JR.,
CITY OF SHERIDAN, Individually & Official Capacity,
DET. KRISTINE BRYANT, Individual & Official Capacity,
OFF. MIKE MONTOYA, Individually,
OFF. ROBERT ARELLANO, Individually,
OFF. NANCY SCHWAN, Individually, and
OFF. CLARK CAPE, Individually,
ORDER DENYING REINSTATEMENT OF CASE
AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND ACTION
At issue in this case is the “Motion for Court to Re-Open the Action” that Plaintiff
filed on March 26, 2012. Previously, on July 7, 2011, the Court dismissed the action in
part, stayed the action in part, and administratively closed the action. The Court
instructed Mr. Handy that, if he desired to continue with this case after disposition of the
criminal charges against him in state court, he must request to lift the stay within thirty
days of the disposition of the criminal charge or within thirty days of the completion of
state court appellate process.
In the Motion to Re-Open, Plaintiff asserts that the state court charges against
him were resolved in his favor. Plaintiff also asserts in the Amended Complaint he
submitted to the Court on March 26, 2012, that on or about August 18, 2011, he was
acquitted of the charges at issue in this case. Plaintiff has failed to request that the stay
be lifted within thirty days of the disposition of the charges at issue in this case. The
Court, therefore, will deny Plaintiff’s request to reopen the case.
Finally, the Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal
from this Order is not taken in good faith, and, therefore, in forma pauperis status will be
denied for the purpose of appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438
(1962). If Plaintiff files a notice of appeal he must also pay the full $455 appellate filing
fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Circuit within thirty days in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 24.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Court to Re-Open Action, Doc. No. 23, is
denied. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Complaint and action are dismissed without
prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to comply with the Court’s July 7,
2011 Order. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Amend Complaint, Doc. No. 20, is
denied as moot. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is
DATED April 2, 2012, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court
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?