Folsom v. Fremont County Sheriff Office et al
ORDER dismissing this action without prejudice, and denying without prejudice leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 4/10/14. (dkals, ) Modified on 4/10/2014 to note that this was filed in error, and is a duplicate of 5 (dkals, ).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-00398-BNB
MICHAEL THOMAS FOLSOM,
FREMONT COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE (F.C.S.O.),
DEP. S. CARTER, and
ALL OF THE FREMONT COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE EMPLOYEES,
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff, Michael Thomas Folsom, is a prisoner in the custody of the Colorado
Department of Corrections at the Fremont County Detention Center in Cañon City,
Colorado. He has submitted pro se a Prisoner Complaint (ECF No. 1) pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983, among other statutes, and a Prisoner’s Motion and Affidavit for Leave to
Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (ECF No. 3).
Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland determined that the submitted documents
were deficient, and on February 18, 2014, entered an order (ECF No. 4) directing Mr.
Folsom to cure certain deficiencies if he wished to pursue his claims in this Court in this
action. The February 18 order directed Mr. Folsom to file within thirty days an amended
Prisoner’s Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 on
the Court-approved form together with a certified copy of his trust fund account
statement for the six-month period immediately preceding this filing. Alternatively, the
February 18 order directed Mr. Folsom to pay the $400.00 filing fee for a civil rights
action. The February 18 order also directed Mr. Folsom to file an amended Prisoner
Complaint that complies with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The
Prisoner Complaint, which generally contended Plaintiff was being sexually harassed,
failed to assert any specific claims or request any relief.
The February 18 order specifically directed Mr. Folsom to obtain with the
assistance of his case manager or the facility’s legal assistant the Court-approved forms
for filing a Prisoner’s Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915 and a Prisoner Complaint, along with the applicable instructions, at
www.cod.uscourts.gov, and to use those forms in curing the designated deficiencies
and filing the amended Prisoner Complaint. The February 18 order warned Mr. Folsom
that if he failed to cure the designated deficiencies within the time allowed, the Prisoner
Complaint and action may be dismissed without further notice.
Mr. Folsom failed within the time allowed to comply with the directives of the
February 18 order or otherwise communicate with the Court in any way. Therefore, the
Complaint and the action will be dismissed without prejudice for Mr. Folsom’s failure to
cure the designated deficiencies and file an amended Prisoner Complaint as directed
within the time allowed, and for his failure to prosecute.
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. Folsom files a notice of appeal he also must pay the full $505.00
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.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the 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, Michael Thomas Folsom, within the time allowed to cure the designated
deficiencies and file an amended Prisoner Complaint as directed in the order of
February 18, 2014, and for his failure to prosecute. 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 any pending motions are denied as moot.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this
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?