Brackin v. People of the State of Colorado

Filing 4

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-02688-BNB

KRISTOPHER BRACKIN,
Applicant,
v.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO,
Respondent.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On September 30, 2014, Applicant Kristopher Brackin initiated this action by filing
pro se a pleading titled, “Motion to Sentencing Reconsideration (35(b) Reconsideration)
(11th Circuit Court Sentence).” On October 1, 2014, Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland
entered an order and directed Applicant to submit his claims and a request to proceed
in forma pauperis on proper Court-approved forms. Applicant was warned that the
action would be dismissed without further notice if he failed to cure the deficiencies
within thirty days.
Applicant now has failed to communicate with the Court. As a result, he has
failed to cure the deficiencies within the time allowed. The Court, therefore, will dismiss
the action.
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 is 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 also pay the full $505 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 action is 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 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).
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this

7th

day of

November

, 2014.

BY THE COURT:

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

2