Cantu v. Executive Director of CDOC et al

Filing 20

ORDER dismissing this action without prejudice, and denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 7/25/13. No certificate of appealability will issue. (dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-01500-BNB
MONTE CANTU,
Plaintiff,
v.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF CDOC,
RAE TIMME,
JUSTIN MCBRIDE,
BENJAMIN THIEL,
RODNEY ACHEN,
BERNARD CANTIN,
LEONARD VIGIL,
TOM JORDAN,
JERI ALTMAN,
TERRI HARDING,
AUDRA DE SANTOS,
MARK BUTTONS,
CARL WILLIAMS,
SHANNA RICHARDSON,
PAMELA BENTLEY,
DAVID BERGMAN,
CHRISTINA SMITH,
LAURA BUFFMACK,
SCOTT LANCASTER, and
LANCE MIKLICH,
Defendants.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, Monte Cantu, and thirteen other individuals, all of whom are in the
custody of the Colorado Department of Corrections (DOC) at the Colorado Territorial
Correctional Facility (CTCF) in Canón City, Colorado, initiated this action on June 6,
2012, by filing a Prisoner Complaint.

In a June 14, 2013 Order, Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland reviewed the
Complaint and determined that the joinder of numerous unrelated claims and
defendants was not appropriate under Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a) (providing for joinder of claims that arise out of the same
transaction or occurrence). The Court therefore dismissed all of the plaintiffs, except for
Plaintiff Cantu, without prejudice. Each of the dismissed plaintiffs was advised that he
could thereafter initiate a separate, individual civil rights action with the Court.
In the June 14 Order, Magistrate Judge Boland directed Plaintiff to file his
complaint on the court-approved Prisoner Complaint form within thirty (30) days.
Mr. Cantu has failed to file a Prisoner Complaint on the court-approved form, nor
has he requested an extension of time to comply with the June 14 Order. Therefore,
this 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. Cantu 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 this action is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Rule
41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for Mr. Cantu’s failure to comply with the
June 14, 2013 Order Directing Plaintiff Cantu to Cure Deficiencies and for failure to
prosecute. It is
2

FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability will issue because
jurists of reason would not debate the correctness of this procedural ruling and Mr.
Cantu has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is
denied. Mr. Cantu may file a motion in the Tenth Circuit. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions are DENIED as moot.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 25th day of

July , 2013.

BY THE COURT:

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

3