C.E. Walker v. No Named Respondent
ORDER of Dismissal dismissing this action without prejudice, and denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Any pending motions are denied as moot. By Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 4/9/2014. (klyon, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-00427-BNB
C. E. WALKER, also known as
CORTEZ EDWARD WALKER,
[NO NAMED RESPONDENT],
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Applicant, C. E. Walker, also known as Cortez Edward Walker, currently is
incarcerated at the Denver County Jail. His alias has been added to the caption of this
order. Mr. Walker submitted pro se a letter (ECF No. 1) to former Chief Judge Edward
W. Nottingham. He appeared to be attempting to supplement a prior dismissed lawsuit
initiated pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Walker v. Stanley, No. 06-cv-01252-ZLW (D.
Colo. Sept. 1, 2006), appeal dismissed, No. 06-1406 (10th Cir. Feb. 15, 2007), which
challenged the revocation of his parole when he was in the custody of the Colorado
Department of Corrections and incarcerated at the San Carlos Correctional Facility in
Pueblo, Colorado. Mr. Walker failed to clarify whether he is awaiting sentencing on new
criminal charges and/or facing a parole revocation hearing.
Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland reviewed the letter and determined it was
deficient. On February 19, 2014, Magistrate Judge Boland entered an order directing
Mr. Walker within thirty days to cure certain enumerated deficiencies in the letter he
filed. Magistrate Judge Boland directed Mr. Walker to obtain, with the assistance of his
case manager or the facility's legal assistant, the Court-approved forms for filing a
a Prisoner’s Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 in
a Habeas Corpus Action and an Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241. The February 19 order directed Mr. Walker to complete and submit
those forms. Specifically, Mr. Walker was ordered to submit a Prisoner’s Motion and
Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 in a Habeas Corpus Action,
together with a certificate showing the current balance in his prison account.
Alternatively, he was informed he could pay the $5.00 filing fee for a habeas corpus
action. He also was directed to submit a § 2241 application that named as Respondent
his current warden, superintendent, jailer, or other custodian.
On March 4, 2014, Mr. Walker submitted a letter in response to the February 19
order to cure. However, he failed within the time allowed to cure any of the deficiencies
in this case. Therefore, the action will be dismissed without prejudice for Mr. Walker'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. Walker 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. P. 24.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the action dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the failure of Applicant, C. E. Walker, also
known as Cortez Edward Walker, to cure the deficiencies designated in the order to
cure of February 19, 2014, within the time allowed. 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 April 9, 2014, at Denver, Colorado.
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?