Aurit v. Suthers et al

Filing 7

ORDER dismissing this action without prejudice, and denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 10/17/13. (dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 13-cv-02427-BNB
TODD ANTHONY AURIT,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN W. SUTHERS, et al.,
ANGEL MEDINA, et al.,
GERALD MARRONNEY, et al.,
LANCE INGALLS, et al.,
CHERYL LAYNE, et al.,
RICHARD CASCHETTE, et al.,
PAUL KING, et al., and
GEORGE BRAUCHER, et al., or any John or Jane Doe to be added at
Plaintiffs [sic] discretion,
Defendants.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, Todd A. Aurit, is a prisoner in the custody of the Colorado Department of
Corrections who currently is incarcerated at the Fremont Correctional Facility in Cañon
City, Colorado. He initiated the instant action by submitting pro se a Prisoner Complaint
(ECF No. 1), a Prisoner’s Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915 (ECF No. 3), and an affidavit (ECF No. 4).
The Court reviewed the documents and determined they were deficient.
Therefore, on September 6, 2013, Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland entered an order
(ECF No. 5) directing Mr. Aurit to cure certain enumerated deficiencies in the case
within thirty days if he wished to pursue his claims.

The September 6 order pointed out that Mr. Aurit failed to submit either the
$400.00 filing fee or a Prisoner’s Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915 on the proper, Court-approved form, i.e., the current form revised
October 1, 2012, with an authorization and certificate of prison official. The September
6 order also pointed out that Mr. Aurit failed to submit a six-month certified account
statement because he previously had done so. The September 6 order further directed
him to file an amended Prisoner Complaint on the proper, Court-approved form that did
not use et al. instead of listing all parties in the caption.
The September 6 order directed Mr. Aurit to obtain, with the assistance of his
case manager or the facility’s legal assistant, the current Court-approved forms for filing
a Prisoner’s Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915
and Prisoner Complaint. The order warned Mr. Aurit that if he failed to cure the
designated deficiencies within thirty days, the action would be dismissed without
prejudice and without further notice.
On September 24, 2013, Mr. Aurit submitted a document titled “Upon Petition in
Limine, (In Camera)” (ECF No. 6). However, he has failed within the time allowed to
cure the designated deficiencies. Therefore, the Prisoner Complaint and the action will
be dismissed without prejudice for Mr. Aurit’s failure to cure the designated deficiencies
as directed within the time allowed.
Finally, the Court certifies pursuant to § 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. Aurit files a notice of appeal he also must pay the full $455.00 appellate
2

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 (ECF No. 1) and the action are
dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure for the failure of Plaintiff, Todd A. Aurit, to cure the deficiencies designated in
the order to cure of September 6, 2013, within the time allowed. It is
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 17th

day of

October

, 2013.

BY THE COURT:

s/Christine M. Arguello
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO,
United States District Judge, for
LEWIS T. BABCOCK
Senior Judge, United States District Court

3