Ackerman v. United States Army
ORDER dismissing this action without prejudice, and denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 11/7/14. No certificate of appealability shall issue. (dkals, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-02679-BNB
EDWIN MARK ACKERMAN,
UNITED STATES ARMY, and
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Applicant, Edwin Mark Ackerman, is in the custody of the Colorado Department
of Corrections at the Colorado Territorial Correctional Facility in Cañon City, Colorado.
Applicant initiated this action by filing pro se a Motion for Dismissal of Detainer. On
October 1, 2014, Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland directed Applicant to cure certain
deficiencies if he wished to pursue his claims. Specifically, Magistrate Judge Boland
instructed Applicant to submit his claims on a Court-approved form used in filing 28
U.S.C. § 2241 actions and either to pay the $5 filing fee or in the alternative submit a
request to proceed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 in a habeas action.
Magistrate Judge Boland warned Applicant that the action would be dismissed
without further notice if he failed to cure the deficiencies within thirty days. On October
22, 2014, Applicant submitted a Prisoner’s Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed on
Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Fed. R. App. P. 24 in a Habeas Corpus
Action. Applicant also submitted his claims on a Court-approved form that is used when
filing a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Neither of the forms are the proper Court-approved
forms that are used when filing a § 2241 action. Applicant has filed over twenty actions
with this Court. Most recently he filed Ackerman v. Warden, No. 12-cv-02138-LTB (D.
Colo. Nov. 30, 2012), and Ackerman v. Davis, et al., No. 13-cv-03487-RM (D. Colo. July
7, 2014). Applicant was able to comply with the Court’s directives to cure deficiencies in
Case No. 12-cv-02138-LTB, and in Case No. 13-cv-03487-RM he was able to submit
the proper forms without direction from the Court. Therefore, because Applicant has
shown that he is capable of curing deficiencies as directed but failed to do so in this
case, the action will be dismissed for failure to comply with the October 1, 2014 Order
within the time allowed.
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 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 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 Application is denied and the action is dismissed without
prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to cure all 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 no certificate of appealability shall issue because
Applicant has failed to show that jurists of reason would find it debatable that the district
court was correct in its procedural ruling. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85
(2000). It is
FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions are denied as moot.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this
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?