Santistevan v. Trinidad Police Department et al
Filing
7
ORDER dismissing this action without prejudice, and denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 1/23/14. (dkals, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-03129-BNB
LORETTA SANTISTEVAN
Plaintiff,
v.
TRINIDAD POLICE DEPARTMENT - CHARLES GOLIROSO, Chief of Police,
LES DOWNS, Ineffective Counsel, Attorney at Law, and
FRANK RUBALID, District Attorney that went by hearsay,
Defendants.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
On November 18, 2013, Plaintiff, Loretta Santistevan, an inmate at the La Vista
Correctional Facility in Pueblo, Colorado, submitted pro se a Prisoner Complaint and
Prisoner’s Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
On November 19, 2013, Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland entered an order
directing Plaintiff to cure certain deficiencies within thirty days if she wished to pursue
her claims in this Court. Plaintiff was advised that to the extent she was challenging her
conditions of confinement and medical treatment, she was required to submit a Prisoner
Complaint, and to the extent she was challenging the validity of the sentence she is
serving, she was required to pursue her claims in a separate action by filing an
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Plaintiff was
warned that the action would be dismissed without further notice if she failed to cure the
deficiencies within thirty days.
On December 17, 2013, Plaintiff submitted a letter requesting an extension of
time to cure the deficiencies. The Court granted Plaintiff’s request and informed Plaintiff
that she had up to and including January 17, 2014, to cure the deficiencies designated
in the Order to Cure entered on November 19, 2013.
Plaintiff did not file any complaint or application with the Court and has failed to
communicate with the Court in any way since December 17, 2013. As a result, Plaintiff
has failed to cure the deficiencies within the time allowed. The Court, therefore, will
dismiss the action for failure to cure and failure to prosecute.
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 is denied
for the purpose of appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962). If
Plaintiff files a notice of appeal she must also pay the full $505 appellate filing fee or file
a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the Tenth Circuit within thirty days in
accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 24. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Complaint and action are dismissed without prejudice
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to cure the deficiencies 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 23th day of
January
, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court
2
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?