Vaden v. Seele et al
Filing
14
ORDER dismissing this action without prejudice, and denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 2/19/14. (dkals, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-03081-BNB
CHARLES G. VADEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
DIANA SEELE,
PAULA LONGFORD, and
HEIDI HURTADO,
Defendants.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff, Charles G. Vaden, resides in Johnstown, Colorado. Plaintiff, initiated
this action by filing pro se a Civil Complaint. In an order entered on November 14,
2013, Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland directed Plaintiff to cure certain deficiencies if
he wished to pursue his claims. Specifically, Magistrate Judge Boland directed Plaintiff
to complete all sections of the Complaint form and to submit a Motion and Affidavit for
Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Magistrate Judge Boland warned
Plaintiff that the action would be dismissed without further notice if he failed to cure the
deficiencies within thirty days.
On December 9, 2013, Plaintiff filed a completed Complaint form and a § 1915
Motion and Affidavit. Magistrate Judge Boland found the information provided in the
§ 1915 Motion and Affidavit to be contradictory and confusing and directed Plaintiff to
resubmit the form to the Court and to include proper and clarifying information regarding
his income and expenses. In response to Magistrate Judge Boland’s directive to
resubmit the § 1915 form, Plaintiff filed a Financial Affidavit that is used for CJA
appointments of counsel. Magistrate Judge Boland then entered a minute order on
January 13, 2014, that found the Affidavit unresponsive to the Second Order to Cure
and directed the Clerk of the Court to send a § 1915 Motion form to Plaintiff to complete
and return to the Court within thirty days.
On January 30, 2014, Plaintiff submitted a second § 1915 Motion. The January
30 Motion, however, is not properly notarized or certified by Plaintiff because the
signature page Plaintiff attached to the January 30 Motion is from the § 1915 Motion
that he submitted to the Court on December 9, 2013. The information Plaintiff provides
in the January 30 Motion regarding his expenses varies substantially from the
information Plaintiff provided in the December 9 Motion and needs to be separately
notarized. Furthermore, Plaintiff identifies expenses he asserts that he pays but does
not identify any income. Plaintiff was given three opportunities to submit a properly
completed § 1915 motion but has failed to do so. The action, therefore, will be
dismissed.
The Court also certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from
this Order is not 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 must pay the full $505 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.
2
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Complaint and action are dismissed without prejudice
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to comply with the Court’s January 13,2014
Order, within the time allowed, and for failure to prosecute. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is
denied. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions are denied as moot.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this
19th
day of
February
, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court
3
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?