Rea II et al v. Ruffini et al
ORDER Of Dismissal. The action is dismissed without prejudice. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied without prejudice. The pending motions are denied as moot. By Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 6/27/2014. (klyon, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-01397-BNB
MICHAEL D. REA, II, and
ANTHONY L. JIMENEZ, SR.,
MICHELLE RUFFINI, AVCF Mailroom,
COLO. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS,
WARDEN RANDY LIND, et al.,
STEVE LUCERO, “STG” Coordinator,
SECURITY MJR. HOUSTON, and
ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN SUTHERS, et al.,
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiffs are prisoners in the custody of the Colorado Department of Corrections.
Plaintiffs initiated this action by filing pro se a Prisoner Complaint (ECF No. 1) and a
document titled “Notice of Entry of Appearance and Potential Class Action Status Fed.
Civ. R. 23 (ECF No. 3). On May 16, 2014, Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland entered
an order directing Plaintiffs to cure certain deficiencies if they wished to pursue their
claims. Specifically, Magistrate Judge Boland directed Plaintiffs either to pay filing and
administrative fees totaling $400.00 or to file individual motions seeking leave to
proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 along with a certified copy of
each inmate’s trust fund account statement and an authorization from each inmate to
calculate and disburse filing fee payments. Magistrate Judge Boland also noted that
Plaintiffs improperly used “et al.” in the caption of the Prisoner Complaint rather than
listing each named Defendant. Magistrate Judge Boland warned Plaintiffs that any
Plaintiff who failed to cure the deficiencies within the time allowed would be dismissed
as a party to this action without further notice.
On May 23, 2014, each Plaintiff filed a Prisoner’s Motion and Affidavit for Leave
to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action. (See ECF Nos.
5 & 6.) Plaintiffs also filed on May 23, 2014, a “Motion for Leave to Correct Caption and
Cure Deficiencies as per Order Dated May 19, 2014, by Honorable J., Boyd N. Boland”
(ECF No. 7). Plaintiffs attached to this motion certified copies of their inmate trust fund
account statements. (See ECF No. 7 at 3-5.) Plaintiffs also have filed other papers in
this action (see ECF Nos. 8-12), but neither Plaintiff has submitted an authorization to
calculate and disburse filing fee payments as directed. Therefore, the action will be
dismissed without prejudice because Plaintiffs failed 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 either 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 action is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because Plaintiffs 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.
FURTHER ORDERED that the pending motions are denied as moot.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this
27th 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?