Adams v. No Named Defendants

Filing 5

ORDER dismissing this action without prejudice, and denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 9/9/14. (dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-02040-BNB
DAVID L. ADAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.
[NO NAMED DEFENDANT]
Defendant.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, David L. Adams, is detained at the Boulder County Jail in Boulder,
Colorado. Plaintiff initiated this action by filing pro se a Letter and an Affidavit. In the
Letter, Plaintiff requests legal advice and states that he is challenging the jail’s refusal to
allow him access to the courts in a state criminal proceeding. In the Affidavit, Plaintiff
states that he is a “sovereign citizen” and “as the people of this state,” has the “sole and
exclusive right of governing [himself] as a free, sovereign and independent state.”
On July 25, 2014, Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland entered an order, construed
the action as filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and directed Plaintiff to cure certain
deficiencies in the pleading. Specifically, Magistrate Judge Boland directed Plaintiff to
submit a 28 U.S.C. § 1915 Motion and Affidavit, if he desires to proceed in forma
pauperis, or in the alternative pay the filing fee, and to file his claims on a proper Courtapproved form. Magistrate Judge Boland warned Plaintiff that the action would be
dismissed without further notice if he failed to cure the deficiencies within thirty days.
Rather than cure the deficiencies, Plaintiff submitted a filing titled “Motion to
Dismiss” that he appears to have originally filed in the Boulder County District Court. In
the Motion, Plaintiff again states, as he did in the Letter he filed to initiate this action,

that he is being denied access to the courts and to the jail law library. Plaintiff does not
assert, however, that he is unable to obtain the proper forms for filing a prisoner
complaint and a § 1915 motion or that this Court misconstrued the type of action he
desires to file.
The action will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to cure deficiencies
because Plaintiff has failed to comply with the July 25, 2014 Order within the time
allowed.
The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this
order is not taken in good faith, and, therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for the
purpose of appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962). If Plaintiff
files a notice of appeal he must also pay the full $505.00 appellate filing fee or file a
motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the Tenth Circuit within thirty days in accordance
with Fed. R. App. P. 24. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Complaint and action are dismissed without prejudice
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to cure the deficiencies and for failure to
prosecute. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is
denied. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions are denied as moot.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 9th day of

September

, 2014.

BY THE COURT:

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

2