Collins v. No Named Defendants
ORDER dismissing this action without prejudice as of 9/18/14 by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 9/22/14. (dkals, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-02489-BNB
DAVID LEE COLLINS,
[NO NAMED DEFENDANT],
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
Plaintiff, David Lee Collins, is a prisoner in the custody of the Colorado
Department of Corrections at the Arkansas Valley Correctional Facility in Ordway,
Colorado. Mr. Collins, acting pro se, attempted to initiate this action on September 8,
2014, by filing a letter to the clerk of the Court titled “Request Note(s) U.S. v. Kis; a
Nonjudicial, Administrative Commercial Business Matter of This Court. [A Payment]”
(ECF No. 1), which is unintelligible.
The Court opened this case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because Mr. Collins is a
state prisoner and did not appear to be asserting a challenge to the fact or duration of
his conviction or sentence. On September 10, 2014, Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland
entered an order directing Mr. Collins to cure certain deficiencies if he wished to pursue
any claims in this action. Specifically, Magistrate Judge Boland directed Mr. Collins to
file on the Court-approved form a Prisoner Complaint and either to pay filing and
administrative fees totaling $400.00 or to file on the Court-approved form a Prisoner’s
Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 along with a
certified copy of his inmate trust fund account statement and an authorization to
calculate and disburse filing fee payments. Magistrate Boland also directed Mr. Collins
to file a Prisoner Complaint on the Court-approved form that complied with the pleading
requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Mr. Collins has not cured the deficiencies as directed. Instead, on September
18, 2014, he filed motion titled “Motion to Close With Request(s)” (ECF No. 4) stating
that he does not want to proceed with this action.
The Court must construe liberally Mr. Collins’ filings because he is not
represented by an attorney. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v.
Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). However, the Court should not be an
advocate for a pro se litigant. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. For the reasons stated
below, the “Motion to Close With Request(s)” will be treated as a notice of voluntary
Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Mr. Collins
“may dismiss an action without a court order by filing: (i) a notice of dismissal before the
opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment.” No
response has been filed by any opposing party in this action. A voluntary dismissal
pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A) is effective immediately upon the filing of a written notice of
dismissal, and no subsequent court order is necessary. See J. Moore, Moore’s Federal
Practice ¶ 41.02(2) (2d ed. 1995); Hyde Constr. Co. v. Koehring Co., 388 F.2d 501, 507
(10th Cir. 1968). The notice closes the file. See Hyde Constr. Co., 388 F.2d at 507.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the instant action is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to the
“Motion to Close with Request(s)” (ECF No. 4) filed on September 18, 2014, by Plaintiff,
David Lee Collins, and which the Court has treated as a notice of voluntary dismissal. It
FURTHER ORDERED that the voluntary dismissal is effective as of September
18, 2014, the date the notice of voluntary dismissal was filed in this action.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 22nd
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?