Love v. Dept. of Correction et al

Filing 9

ORDER dismissing this action without prejudice, and denying without prejudice leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 12/1/14. No certificate of appealability will issue. (dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 14-cv-02654-GPG
JERMAINE LOVE,
Applicant,
v.
DEPT. OF CORRECTION,
RICK RAEMISCH,
WALT CHESTERFIELD,
BRANDON SHAFFER, and
BENT. CO. WARDEN,
Respondents.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Applicant, Jermaine Love, initiated this action by filing pro se an Application for a
Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1). On October 24,
2014, Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland entered an order directing Mr. Love to file an
amended application that names a proper Respondent and that clarifies the claims he is
asserting. Mr. Love was warned that the action would be dismissed without further
notice if he failed to file an amended application within thirty days.
On October 31, 2014, the copy of Magistrate Judge Boland’s October 24 order
that was mailed to Mr. Love at the Denver County Jail address he provided was
returned to the Court undelivered. The returned envelope (ECF No. 6) bears a stamp or
sticker that reads “RETURN TO SENDER, NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED,
UNABLE TO FORWARD” and another stamp that reads “No Longer at this Location.” A

notice mailed to Mr. Love on November 14, 2014, also was returned to the Court
undelivered and the returned envelope containing the notice indicates Mr. Love was
released. (See ECF No. 8.)
Pursuant to Rule 11.1(d) of the Local Rules of Practice of the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado-Civil, an unrepresented party must file a notice
of new address within five days of any change of address. Mr. Love has failed to
comply with the Court’s local rules and, as a result, he has failed within the time allowed
to file an amended application as directed. Therefore, the action will be dismissed.
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 Applicant 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 habeas corpus application (ECF No. 1) is denied and the
action is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure because Mr. Love failed to prosecute and file an amended application as
directed. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability will issue because
Applicant has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 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

1st

day of

December

, 2014.

BY THE COURT:

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

3