Robledo-Valdez v. Medina et al
ORDER of Dismissal. ORDERED that the habeas corpus application 1 is denied and the action is dismissed without prejudice. FURTHER ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied without prejudice, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 2/7/13.(sgrim)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-03121-BNB
ANGEL MEDINA, et al., and
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Applicant, Craig Robledo-Valdez, initiated this action by filing pro se an
application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1). On
December 3, 2012, Mr. Robledo-Valdez filed a motion (ECF No. 5) seeking leave to
proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 in this action. On December 5,
2012, the Court entered an order denying the motion seeking leave to proceed in forma
pauperis and directing Mr. Robledo-Valdez to pay the $5.00 filing fee for this habeas
corpus action within thirty days.
On December 7, 2012, Mr. Robledo-Valdez submitted to the Court a letter dated
December 3, 2012, that apparently crossed in the mail with the Court’s order denying
him leave to proceed in forma pauperis and directing him to pay the $5.00 filing fee.
(See ECF No. 8.) Attached to the letter is an account statement that indicates Mr.
Robledo-Valdez had a balance of $-5.92 in his inmate account as of November 30,
2012. (See id. at 2.)
Mr. Robledo-Valdez did not pay the $5.00 filing fee within thirty days after the
Court’s December 5 order directing him to pay the filing fee. However, based on the
account statement filed on December 7, it was not clear whether Mr. Robledo-Valdez
had sufficient funds to pay the filing fee after being ordered to do so. Therefore, on
January 11, 2013, Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland entered an order in this action
granting Mr. Robledo-Valdez an extension of time of twenty-one days either to pay the
filing fee or to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for failure to pay the
filing fee. Mr. Robledo-Valdez was advised that, in order to show good cause, he must
submit a certified copy of his inmate trust fund account statement for the month of
December 2012 that demonstrates he was unable to pay the $5.00 filing fee within the
time allowed. On January 25, 2013, Mr. Robledo-Valdez filed a letter to the Court (ECF
No. 12) in which he states that his mother told him she had paid the filing fee for this
action in December 2012. Mr. Robledo-Valdez also states in the letter that he will be
released from prison soon and “will make sure to pay those 5 dollars.” (ECF No. 12 at
Mr. Robledo-Valdez has failed within the time allowed either to pay the filing fee
or to show cause why he was unable to pay the filing fee. Therefore, the action will be
dismissed without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee.
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 Applicant files a notice of appeal he 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 habeas corpus application (ECF No. 1) is denied and the
action is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure because Mr. Robledo-Valdez failed to comply with a court order directing him
to pay the filing fee. It is
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
7th day of
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?