Brown v. Maketa et al
Filing
11
ORDER dismissing this action without prejudice, and denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 9/5/14. (dkals, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-01618-BNB
SHAUN BROWN, also known as
SHAUN ERIC BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v.
SHERIFF TERRY MAKETA,
DEPUTY CHAD JOHNSON, and
UNKNOWN AGENTS, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff, Shaun Brown, also known as Shaun Eric Brown, was incarcerated at the
El Paso County Criminal Justice Center in Colorado Springs, Colorado, when he
initiated this action by filing pro se a Prisoner Complaint (ECF No. 1) for money
damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 3, 2014, Mr. Brown was ordered to file
an amended Prisoner Complaint (ECF No. 6). The copy of the July 3 order mailed to
Mr. Brown was returned to the Court on July 14, 2014, as undeliverable. See ECF No.
7. Mr. Brown has been granted leave to proceed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
On July 23, 2014, Mr. Brown filed a notice of change of address (ECF No. 8)
informing the Court that he currently resides at 709 South Sierra Madre, Colorado
Springs, CO 80903. He apparently no longer was incarcerated. A review of the
“Finding an Inmate” tab on the DOC website, www.doc.state.co.us, reveals that Mr.
Brown has been paroled to the “Southeast Region.”
Therefore, on July 24, 2014, Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland entered an order
(ECF No. 9) informing Mr. Brown that his continuing obligation to pay the filing fee is to
be determined, like any nonprisoner, solely on the basis of whether he qualifies for in
forma pauperis status. See Whitney v. New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170, 1171 n.1 (10th Cir.
1997); see also McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 612-13 (6th Cir. 1997); In re
Prison Litigation Reform Act, 105 F.3d 1131, 1138-39 (6th Cir. 1997); McGann v.
Commissioner, Soc. Sec. Admin., 96 F.3d 28, 29-30 (2d Cir. 1996). Magistrate Judge
Boland ordered Mr. Brown to submit within thirty days on the Court-approved form an
Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, the in forma
pauperis form to be used by nonprisoners. The magistrate judge informed Mr. Brown
that, alternatively, he may elect to pay the $400.00 filing fee to pursue his claims in this
action.
Mr. Brown has failed within the time allowed to file on the Court-approved form
an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, as directed
in the July 24 order, or otherwise communicate with the Court. The Prisoner Complaint
and the action will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with the July 24
order as directed within the time allowed, and for Mr. Brown’s 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. Brown 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.
2
ORDERED that the Prisoner 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, Shaun Brown, to submit within the time allowed on
the Court-approved form an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying
Fees or Costs, the in forma pauperis form to be used by nonprisoners, and for his
failure to prosecute. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is
denied. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that any pending motions are denied as moot.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 5th day of
September
, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK
Senior Judge, United States District Court
3
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?