Harris v. U.S. District Court

Filing 7

ORDER dismissing this action without prejudice, and denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 1/12/15. (dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 14-cv-03149-GPG
LAWRENCE HARRIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
U.S. DISTRICT COURT,
Defendant.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff Lawrence Harris, acting pro se, initiated this action by filing a Complaint
that asserts fraud against the United States District Court. In the body of the Complaint,
Plaintiff states that he originally sued the Tulsa 66ers for $75,000, but now he is seeking
the money from this Court for failure to act in his behalf and to grant his claim for
$75,000.
On November 21, 2014, Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher entered an order
that determined the filing is deficient and directed Plaintiff either to submit an Application
to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, or in the alternative to pay
the $400 filing fee.
Magistrate Judge Gallagher also directed Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint
within thirty days if he wished to pursue his claims. The November 21 Order directed
Plaintiff to obtain the Court-approved forms for filing an Application to Proceed in District
Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs and a Complaint, along with the applicable

instructions, at www.cod.uscourts.gov, and to use those forms to cure the designated
deficiency and to file an Amended Complaint that complies with the pleading
requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The November 21
Order warned Plaintiff that if he failed to cure the designated deficiency or file an
Amended Complaint as directed, within thirty days, the action may be dismissed without
further notice.
On November 28, 2014, Plaintiff submitted an Amended Complaint that is not on
a Court-approved form and is insufficient under Rule 8 requirements. Plaintiff also
submitted a pleading titled, “Opinion and Order Motion to Dismiss,” on December 1,
2014, and a second pleading titled, “Opinion and Order to Dismiss,” on January 7, 2015.
It is not clear whether Plaintiff is seeking to dismiss this action or is requesting that the
Court enter judgment in his favor and direct a settlement. Plaintiff, however, failed to
submit an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs.
Local Rules 1.2 and 5.1(c) of the Local Rules of Practice - Civil for this Court
require litigants to use the Court-approved forms found on the Court’s website. Rule
83(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a district court to enforce a local
rule imposing a form requirement unless it “causes a party to lose any right because of
a nonwillful failure to comply.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 83(a)(2). Plaintiff makes no mention of
being unable to obtain the Court-approved forms for filing a Complaint or an Application
to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, nor did he ask the Court
to mail him the forms because he was unable to obtain them. Generally, “dismissal is
an appropriate disposition against a party who disregards court orders and fails to
proceed as required by court rules.” United States ex rel. Jimenez v. Health Net, Inc.,
2

400 F.3d 853, 855 (10th Cir. 2005) (citing Nat’l Hockey League v. Metro Hockey Club,
Inc., 427 U.S. 639, 642-43 (1976)).
The action, therefore, will be dismissed for failure to cure the deficiency
designated in the November 21 order and to file an Amended Complaint that complies
with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 within the time allowed.
Finally, 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 Plaintiff 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 Complaint and the action are dismissed without prejudice
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to cure the noted deficiency and to file an
Amended Complaint that complies with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is
denied. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions are denied as moot.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this

12th

day of

January

, 2015.

BY THE COURT:
s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court

3