Laxson v. Lengerich et al

Filing 11

ORDER dismissing this action without prejudice, and denying without prejudice leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 8/6/14. (dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 14-cv-01789-BNB
LLOYD HARVEY LAXSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
WARDEN LINBERG,
BERNALL,
C.D.O.C.,
THE WHOLE MEDICAL DEP.,
MENTAL HEALTH DEP.,
NURSE PRACTITIONER STERGEON,
X-RAY TECK MR. SARI,
MRS. BRONIE, Medical Dep.,
MRS. KISPAR, Medical Dep., and
MRS. JONES, Mental Health,
Defendants.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The instant action was commenced when Plaintiff, Lloyd Harvey Laxson,
submitted to the Court pro se a Prisoner Complaint (ECF No. 1) complaining that he has
been denied adequate medical treatment while incarcerated. On July 1, 2014,
Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer ordered Mr. Laxson to file an amended complaint
that clarifies who he is suing and that complies with the pleading requirements of Rule 8
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Mr. Laxson was warned that the action would
be dismissed without further notice if he failed to file an amended complaint within thirty
days.
On July 9, 2014, Mr. Laxson submitted to the Court a document (ECF No. 5) in

which he again complains about the medical treatment he is receiving while
incarcerated. Within the document filed on July 9 are the pages of the court-approved
Prisoner Complaint form. (See ECF No. 5 at 11-18.) However, the pages of the
Prisoner Complaint form that are included within the document filed on July 9 do not list
any specific claims for relief. Furthermore, even considering the document filed on July
9 in its entirety, it still is not clear who Mr. Laxson is suing in this action or the specific
claims he is asserting. Mr. Laxson subsequently filed four other documents in this
action that also do not clarify who he is suing or the specific claims he is asserting.
(See ECF Nos. 6-9.)
Mr. Laxson has failed within the time allowed to file an amended complaint that
clarifies who he is suing and the claims he is asserting. Therefore, the action will be
dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with a court 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 Prisoner Complaint (ECF No. 1) and the action are
dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure because Mr. Laxson failed to comply with a court order. It is

2

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 6th day of

August

, 2014.

BY THE COURT:

s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court

3