Chambers v. Archiocesan Housing et al

Filing 7

ORDER dismissing this action without prejudice, and denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 5/28/15. 3 Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs is denied as moot. (dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-00573-GPG

GREGORY CHAMBERS,
Plaintiff
v.
ARCHIOCESAN HOUSING,
RON NEFZGER,
SANDRA MACHUCE,
Defendants.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On March 20, 2015, Mr. Chambers, a resident of Denver, Colorado, filed pro se
a Complaint (ECF No. 1) and an Application to Proceed in District Court Without
Prepaying Fees or Costs (ECF No. 2).
As part of the Court’s review pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 8.1(a), the court
determined that Plaintiff’s documents were deficient. In an order entered on March 24,
2015, Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher directed Plaintiff to cure the deficiencies if
he wished to pursue his claims. (ECF No. 4). Specifically, Magistrate Judge Gallagher
informed Plaintiff he needed to file a complete complaint, including the Jurisdiction and
Claims for Relief sections, and he must provide address for all defendants. The Order
specifically informed Mr. Chambers that the action would be dismissed without further
notice if he failed to cure the deficiencies within thirty days. On April 21, 2015, instead
of curing the deficiencies, Plaintiff filed a letter with the Court stating he would like to

add two additional names to his original complaint. (ECF No. 5). Along with the letter,
Plaintiff attached the “Parties and Jurisdiction” page and the “Third Claim for Relief”
page from the court-approved complaint form. (Id.) The letter and pages submitted did
not constitute a complete Complaint.
Therefore, on April 23, 2015, the Court issued a Second Order Directing Plaintiff
to Cure Deficiencies. (ECF No. 6). The Court noted that it appeared Plaintiff attempted
to cure the deficiencies by filing specific pages from the court-approved complaint form,
but that the documents were deficient. Specifically, the Court informed Plaintiff that he
must submit a complete complaint, including all sections and pages. Furthermore, the
Court instructed Plaintiff that his Application to Proceed in District Court Without
Prepaying Fees or Costs was deficient because the specific income and expense items
listed did not add up to equal the total income and expense. The Court ordered Plaintiff
to cure the designated deficiencies within thirty days if he wished to pursue his claims.
Further, the Court notified Mr. Chambers that if he failed to cure the designated
deficiencies within the time allowed, the action would be dismissed without further
notice.
Plaintiff has failed to cure the deficiencies within the time allowed. Therefore, the
action will be dismissed without prejudice.
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
Plaintiff 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
2

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 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 Plaintiff’s pending Application to Proceed in District
Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (ECF No. 3) is DENIED as moot.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this

28th day of May, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court

3