Murray v. Denver County Jail et al

Filing 6

ORDER dismissing this action without prejudice, and denying without prejudice leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 11/4/14. No certificate of appealability will issue, and 3 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 is denied as moot. (dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 14-cv-02697-BNB
JARVIS MURRAY,
Applicant,
v.
DENVER COUNTY JAIL,
DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS,
RICK RAEMIRSCH,
BRANDON SHAFFER, and
WALT CHESTERFIELD (Kit Carson Warden),
Respondent.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Applicant, Jarvis Murray, initiated this action while he was detained at the Denver
County Jail in Denver, Colorado, by filing pro se an Application for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1) and 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 (ECF No. 3). On October 1, 2014, Magistrate Judge Boyd N.
Boland entered an order directing Mr. Murray to cure certain deficiencies if he wished to
pursue his claims in this action. Specifically, Magistrate Judge Boland advised Mr.
Murray that the motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915 was not on the proper form and that he failed to submit a certificate
showing the current balance in his inmate account. Mr. Murray was warned that the
action would be dismissed without further notice if he failed to cure the deficiencies

within thirty days.
On October 8, 2014, the copy of Magistrate Judge Boland’s October 1 order that
was mailed to Mr. Murray at the Denver County Jail address he provided was returned
to the Court undelivered. The returned envelope (ECF No. 5) is marked “RTS” and
bears a stamp that reads “No Longer at this Location.” The returned envelope also
bears a stamp or sticker that reads “RETURN TO SENDER, NOT DELIVERABLE AS
ADDRESSED, UNABLE TO FORWARD.”
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 after any change of address. Mr. Murray has failed to
comply with the Court’s local rules and, as a result, he has failed within the time allowed
to cure the deficiencies 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. Murray failed to prosecute and cure the deficiencies as
directed. It is
2

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
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. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the 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 (ECF No. 3) is denied as moot.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this

4th

day of

November

, 2014.

BY THE COURT:

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

3