Barnhill-Stemley, v. Social Security Administration,

Filing 11

ORDER of Dismissal. ORDERED that the Complaint, the amended Complaint, and the action are dismissed without prejudice. FURTHER ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied without prejudice, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 7/19/12. (lygsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 12-cv-00943-BNB
ALTHEA BARNHILL-STEMLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMIN.,
Defendant.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, Althea Barnhill-Stemley, initiated this action by filing pro se a Complaint
(ECF No. 1) that was not signed and did not include any claims for relief. On April 11,
2012, Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland entered an order directing Ms. Barnhill-Stemley
to cure these and other deficiencies. On May 7, 2012, in response to Magistrate Judge
Boland’s April 11 order, Ms. Barnhill-Stemley filed an amended Complaint (ECF No. 5)
and cured the other deficiencies. On May 11, 2012, Magistrate Judge Boland entered
an order directing Ms. Barnhil-Stemley to file a second amended complaint that
complies with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Ms. Barnhill-Stemley was warned that the action would be dismissed
without further notice if she failed to file a second amended complaint within thirty days.
On June 11, 2012, apparently in response to Magistrate Judge Boland’s May 11
order, Ms. Barnhill-Stemley submitted to the Court for filing a set of documents that
includes letters from attorneys regarding legal representation with respect to a Social

Security disability claim. On June 12, 2012, Magistrate Judge Boland entered a minute
order advising Ms. Barnhill-Stemley that the documents did not satisfy the order
directing her to file a second amended complaint and granting Ms. Barnhill-Stemley an
additional thirty days to submit a second amended complaint on the court-approved
form. Ms. Barnhill-Stemley again was advised that the action would be dismissed
without further notice if she failed to file a second amended complaint within the time
allowed.
Ms. Barnhill-Stemley has failed to file a second amended complaint within the
time allowed. Therefore, the action will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to
comply with a court order.
Furthermore, the Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any
appeal from this order would not be 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 she also must 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 the Complaint, the amended Complaint, and the action are
dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure because Ms. Barnhill-Stemley failed to comply with a court order. It is

2

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.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this

19th

day of

July

, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court

3