King v. Raemisch et al

Filing 4

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. No certificate of appealability shall issue. (dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-03204-GPG

JEFFERY DAVID KING,
Applicant,
v.
RICK RAEMISCH, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Corrections, and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF COLORADO,
Respondents.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On November 25, 2014, Applicant Jeffery David King initiated this action by filing
an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On
December 4, 2014, Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher entered an order and
directed Applicant either to submit a request to proceed in forma pauperis on a 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 12th

day of

January

, 2015.

BY THE COURT:

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

2