Jiron v. State of Colorado et al.

Filing 4

ORDER dismissing this action without prejudice, and denying both 3 Prisoners Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 5/23/13. (dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 13-cv-01328-BNB
LAWRENCE M. JIRON,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF COLORADO, an Agency,
JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, Governor,
THE UNKNOWN DIRECTOR OF D.O.C.,
FREMONT COUNTY COURTS, an Agency,
JUDGE DAVID M. THORSON, an Agent,
OFFICE OF THE DIST. ATTORNEY – FREMONT COUNTY,
THOMAS K. LeDOUX, Dist. Attorney, Fremont County, and
MICHAEL L. PIRRAGLIA, Dist. Attorney,
Defendants.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, Lawrence M. Jiron, is an inmate in the custody of the Colorado
Department of Corrections at the Sterling Correctional Facility in Sterling, Colorado. Mr.
Jiron has filed pro se a Prisoner Complaint (ECF No. 1) and a Prisoner’s Motion and
Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (ECF No. 3). Mr. Jiron is
challenging the validity of his conviction in Fremont County District Court case number
11CR18. The Court notes that Mr. Jiron also has filed an application for a writ of
habeas corpus challenging the validity of the same conviction. See Jiron v. Falk, No.
13-cv-00306-BNB (D. Colo. filed Feb. 5, 2013). In the instant action, Mr. Jiron seeks
damages and other relief. For the reasons stated below, the action will be dismissed.
Mr. Jiron has been permanently enjoined from filing pro se civil complaints in the

District of Colorado without first obtaining leave of court to proceed pro se. See Jiron v.
County of Alamosa, No. 95-cv-01075-EWN (D. Colo. Sept. 17, 1998). In order to obtain
permission to proceed pro se, Mr. Jiron must submit with any complaint he seeks to file
a “Petition Pursuant to Court Order Seeking Leave to File a Pro Se Action” that includes
certain information specified in the sanction order. Mr. Jiron has not filed the necessary
petition seeking leave to file a pro se action and he has not provided the information
specified in the sanction order. Therefore, the action will be dismissed because Mr.
Jiron has failed to comply with the sanction 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 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 Prisoner Complaint and the action are dismissed without
prejudice because Plaintiff has failed to comply with the order enjoining him from filing
pro se civil complaints. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Prisoner’s Motion and Affidavit for Leave to
Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (ECF No. 3) is DENIED as moot. 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 23rd day of

May

, 2013.

BY THE COURT:

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

3