Hodson v. District Court, Weld County et al

Filing 8

ORDER of Dismissal. ORDERED that the complaint and the action are dismissed without prejudice. FURTHER ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied. It is FURTHER ORDERED that any pending motions are denied as moot, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 12/13/12. (mjgsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 12-cv-02668-BNB
TRAVIS HODSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
DISTRICT COURT,
CATHERINE WALKER,
KAREN SALEZ,
JAMES R. HARTMAN,
KENNETH R. BUCK,
KEVIN NELAN,
JOHN COOKE,
ROBYN JUBA,
ESPERANZA ORTIZ,
GABE REIMER, and
THOMAS JAMES QUAMMEN,
Defendants.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, Travis Stewart Hodson, is a prisoner in the custody of the Colorado
Department of Corrections who currently is incarcerated at the correctional facility in
Buena Vista, Colorado. Mr. Hodson initiated this action by filing pro se a civil rights
complaint asserting claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that his rights to due process
and to be free of cruel and unusual punishment under the United States Constitution
had been violated. He paid the $350.00 filing fee.
On November 6, 2012, Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland ordered Mr. Hodson to
file within thirty days an amended complaint that complied with the pleading

requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, sued the proper parties,
asserted the personal participation of each named defendant, and did not assert habeas
corpus claims challenging the validity of his conviction or sentence. Magistrate Judge
Boland warned Mr. Hodson that, if he failed to comply with the November 6 order within
the time allowed, the complaint and the action would be dismissed without further
notice.
Mr. Hodson has failed, within the time allowed, to comply with the November 6
order or otherwise to communicate with the Court in any way. Therefore, the complaint
and the action will be dismissed.
Finally, 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 Mr. Hodson files a notice of appeal he also must pay the full $455.00
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 and the action are dismissed without prejudice
pursuant to Rules 8 and 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the failure of
Plaintiff, Travis Hodson, to comply with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 and the
directives of the order of November 6, 2012, and for his failure to prosecute. It is

2

FURTHER ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is
denied. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that any pending motions are denied as moot.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 13th day of

December

, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

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

3