Sollis v. NSA et al
ORDER dismissing this action without prejudice, and denying leave to proceed in forma pampers on appeal, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 12/8/14. (dkals, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-02934-GPG
SCOTT A. SOLLIS, E. U. [enslaved unlawfully],
DIRECTOR HOMELAND SECURITY,
DIRECTOR COLORADO BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
CHIEF OF POLICE, Grand Junction Police Department, and
PRESIDENT B. HUSSEIN OBAMA,
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff, Scott A. Sollis, currently is incarcerated at the Mesa County Detention
Facility in Grand Junction, Colorado. Mr. Sollis initiated this action by filing pro se a
Prisoner Complaint (ECF No. 1) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and a Prisoner’s Motion
and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (ECF No. 2). The
Court reviewed the documents and determined they were deficient. Therefore on
October 29, 2014, Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher directed Mr. Sollis to cure
certain enumerated deficiencies in the case and file an amended Prisoner Complaint if
he wished to pursue his claims.
The October 29 order directed Mr. Sollis within thirty days either to pay the
$400.00 filing fee or file a completed Prisoner’s Motion and Affidavit for Leave to
Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 on the proper, Court-approved form, i.e., the
current form revised October 1, 2012, with an authorization and certificate of prison
official, together with a certified copy of his trust fund account statement for the sixmonth period immediately preceding this filing obtained from the appropriate prison
official. The October 29 order pointed out that the names in the caption to the § 1915
motion and affidavit did not match the names in the caption to the Prisoner Complaint.
The October 29 order also directed that the amended Prisoner Complaint Mr. Sollis filed
must comply with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and allege the personal participation of each named Defendant. The order
warned Mr. Sollis that if he failed to cure the designated deficiencies or file an amended
Prisoner Complaint as directed within the time allowed, the Prisoner Complaint and the
action may be dismissed without further notice.
Mr. Sollis has failed within the time allowed to pay the $400.00 filing fee or cure
the designated deficiencies, file an amended Prisoner Complaint as directed, or
otherwise communicate with the Court in any way. Therefore, the Prisoner Complaint
and the action will be dismissed for Mr. Sollis’ failure within the time allowed to pay the
$400.00 filing fee or cure the designated deficiencies, his failure to file an amended
Prisoner Complaint as directed, and his failure to prosecute.
Finally, the Court certifies pursuant to § 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 Mr. Sollis files a notice of appeal he also must pay the full $505.00 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 Prisoner Complaint (ECF No. 1) and the action are
dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rules 8 and 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure for the failure of Plaintiff, Scott A. Sollis, within the time allowed to cure the
designated deficiencies, file an amended Prisoner Complaint as directed in the order of
October 29, 2014, and for his failure to prosecute. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is
denied. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that any pending motions are denied as moot.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 8th
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?