Sutton v. La Page et al

Filing 20

ORDER dismissing this action without prejudice, and denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 12/5/14. (dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 14-cv-02387-GPG

JOSHUA LAMONT SUTTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
FRAN LaPAGE, Religious Programs, Coordinator for the Pueblo County Sheriff’s
Office, In Both her Individual and Official Capacities, and
SEVERAL OTHER OFFICERS OF THE SAME SHERIFF’S OFFICE,
Defendants.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff Joshua Lamont Sutton is in the custody of the Colorado Department of
Corrections and currently is incarcerated at the Kit Carson Correctional Center in
Burlington, Colorado. Plaintiff initiated this action by filing pro se a Prisoner Complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a Prisoner’s Motion and Affidavit for Leave to
Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland reviewed the
Complaint and the § 1915 motion, determined the filings were deficient, and directed
Plaintiff to cure the deficiencies. Plaintiff cured the deficiencies and was granted leave
to proceed pursuant to § 1915 on October 23, 2014.
Magistrate Judge Boland then reviewed the merits of the Complaint and found
that the Complaint failed to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Plaintiff was directed to
amend the complaint and assert personal participation by each named defendant.
Plaintiff further was directed to state what each defendant did to him, when the action
was done, how the action harmed him, and what specific legal right the defendant

violated. Magistrate Judge Boland warned Plaintiff that if he failed to comply with the
Order to Amend within the time allowed the Court would dismiss the action without
further notice.
Plaintiff now has failed to comply with the October 24, 2014 Order within the time
allowed. The Court finds Magistrate Judge Boland correctly determined that Plaintiff
failed to comply with Rule 8 and required him to amend the Complaint. The Court,
therefore, will dismiss the action for failure to comply with a Court order and to
prosecute.
The Court also 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 paupers 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 appellate filing fee or file a
motion to proceed in forma pampers 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 file an Amended Complaint and for failure
to prosecute. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pampers on appeal is
denied.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this

5th day of

December

, 2014.

BY THE COURT:

s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court
2