Burton v. Alem
Filing
5
ORDER dismissing this action without prejudice, and denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 12/5/14. No certificate of appealability shall issue. (dkals, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-02904-GPG
BOBBY E. BURTON, JR.,
Applicant,
v.
SHANANWAR ALEM,
Respondent.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
On October 24, 2014, Applicant Bobby E. Burton Jr. initiated this action by filing a
Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State
Custody. On October 27, 2014, Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland entered an order and
directed Applicant to submit his claims on a proper court-approved form and either to
submit a request to proceed in forma pauperis on proper Court-approved form or in the
alternative to pay the $5 filing fee. 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
5th
day of
December
, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court
2
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?