Bonilla v. No Named Respondents

Filing 14

ORDER dismissing this action without prejudice, and denying without prejudice leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 3/5/15. 7 Motion for Leave to File In Forma Pauperis is denied as moot. (dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 14-cv-02937-GPG
ADAM BONILLA,
Applicant,
v.
[NO RESPONDENT NAMED],
Respondent.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Applicant, Adam Bonilla, is a detainee at the Colorado Mental Health Institute at
Pueblo, Colorado. Mr. Bonilla initiated this action by filing pro se a letter (ECF No. 1)
alleging that his constitutional rights have been violated and that he is being held
illegally. The instant habeas corpus action was commenced and, on October 30, 2014,
Mr. Bonilla was ordered to cure certain deficiencies if he wished to pursue any habeas
corpus claims. In particular, Mr. Bonilla was ordered to file on the proper form an
Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and either to pay
the $5.00 filing fee for a habeas corpus action or to file on the proper form a Prisoner’s
Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 in a Habeas
Corpus Action along with a certificate showing the current balance in his inmate
account. Mr. Bonilla was warned that the action would be dismissed if he failed to cure
the deficiencies within thirty days.
Mr. Bonilla was granted multiple extensions of time to cure the deficiencies after

he filed three motions for appointment of counsel (ECF Nos. 5, 8, & 11) and a “Motion
for Leave to File In Forma Pauperis” (ECF No. 7) that is not on the proper form. On
January 27, 2015, Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher entered an order denying the
third motion for appointment of counsel and explained to Mr. Bonilla that he must file an
initial pleading that identifies the federal constitutional claims he is asserting and the
specific factual allegations that support those claims before a decision regarding
appointment of counsel can be made. Therefore, Magistrate Judge Gallagher again
directed Mr. Bonilla to cure the deficiencies and he directed the clerk of the Court to
mail to Mr. Bonilla the necessary forms to cure the deficiencies. Mr. Bonilla again was
warned that the action would be dismissed without further notice if he failed to cure all of
the deficiencies within thirty days.
Mr. Bonilla has not cured the deficiencies within the time allowed and he has
failed to communicate with the Court in any way in response to Magistrate Judge
Gallagher’s January 27 order. Therefore, the action will be dismissed without prejudice
for failure to cure the deficiencies.
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

2

ORDERED that the action is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because Mr. Bonilla failed to cure the
deficiencies as directed. 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 “Motion for Leave to File In Forma Pauperis”
(ECF No. 7) is denied as moot.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this

5th

day of

March

, 2015.

BY THE COURT:

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

3