Renoir v. Larimer County
ORDER of DISMISSIAL, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 3/12/2014. (trlee, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-00288-BNB
PIERRE A. RENOIR,
LARIMER COUNTY, et al., unknown parties,
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff, Pierre A. Renoir, a prison inmate in Virginia, initiated this action by filing
pro se a complaint (ECF No. 1) and a letter to the Court (ECF No. 3). On January 31,
2014, Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland entered an order directing Mr. Renoir to cure
certain deficiencies if he wished to pursue his claims in this action. Specifically,
Magistrate Judge Boland directed Mr. Renoir to file a Prisoner Complaint on the courtapproved form and either to pay filing and administrative fees totaling $400.00 or to file
on the court-approved form a Prisoner’s Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 along with a certified copy of his inmate trust fund
account statement and an authorization to calculate and disburse filing fee payments.
Mr. Renoir was warned that the action would be dismissed without further notice if he
failed to cure the deficiencies within thirty days.
In response to the order directing him to cure these deficiencies Mr. Renoir has
filed a Prisoner’s Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915 (ECF No. 6) that includes an authorization to calculate and disburse filing fee
payments, and he has submitted a certified copy of his inmate trust fund account
statement (ECF No. 14). Mr. Renoir also has filed a number of letters to the Court (ECF
Nos. 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, & 13), a financial affidavit (ECF No. 10), and a Prisoner’s Motion
and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 in a Habeas Corpus
Action (ECF No. 7). However, he has failed to cure all of the deficiencies within the time
allowed because he has failed to file a Prisoner Complaint on the proper form that
identifies the claims he intends to pursue in this action. Therefore, the action will be
dismissed without prejudice for failure to cure all of the deficiencies.
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 $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. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the complaint and the action are dismissed without prejudice
pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because Mr. Renoir
failed to cure all of the deficiencies as directed. It is
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. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the pending motions are denied as moot.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 12th
BY THE COURT:
s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court
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?