Smith v. Arapahoe County Combined Court
ORDER Of Dismissal. The Complaint and the action are dismissed without prejudice. The Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (ECF No. 3 ) is DENIED as moot. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied without prejudice. By Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 5/20/2014. (klyon, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-01359-BNB
MATTHEW A. SMITH,
ARAPAHOE COUNTY COMBINED COURT,
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff, Matthew A. Smith, submitted pro se a Complaint (ECF No. 1) and a
Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (ECF No. 3).
For the reasons stated below, the action will be dismissed.
Mr. Smith is subject to a sanction order that restricts his ability to file pro se
actions in this court. See Smith v. Byron White 10th Circuit Fed. Court, No. 14-cv00669-LTB (D. Colo. Mar. 10, 2014). The sanction order was entered on April 4, 2014.
(See id. at ECF No. 7.) In the sanction order, Mr. Smith was “prohibited from filing any
new action in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado without the
representation of a licensed attorney admitted to practice in the District of Colorado
unless he obtains permission to proceed pro se” by following the procedures specified
in the sanction order. In order to proceed pro se, the sanction order requires Mr. Smith
to submit to the Court a motion requesting leave to file a pro se action that includes
certain information along with a copy of the proposed new pleading to be filed in the pro
Mr. Smith is not represented by an attorney in the instant action, and he has not
obtained leave of court to proceed pro se. Mr. Smith also has not filed a motion for
leave to file a pro se action as required by the sanction order in 14-cv-00669-LTB, and
he has made no attempt to comply with the terms of the sanction order. Therefore, the
Complaint will be dismissed for failure to comply with the sanction order.
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 for
failure to comply with the sanction order restricting Plaintiff’s ability to file pro se actions
in this Court. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (ECF No. 3) is DENIED as moot. 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.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this
20th day of
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?