Bowen et al v. Carod
ORDER dismissing this action without prejudice, and denying leave to proceed in forma pampers on appeal, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 11/10/15. (dkals, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-00729-GPG
MRS.-MR. THI BOWEN OR HAROLD RAY BOWEN
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff, Mrs.-Mr. Thi Bowen or Harold Ray Bowen, currently resides in Denver,
Colorado. Plaintiff initiated this action by filing pro se a Complaint and an Application to
Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. Before Magistrate Judge
Gordon P. Gallagher conducted an initial review, Plaintiff supplemented the Complaint
and paid the $400 filing fee.
Magistrate Judge Gallagher then reviewed the merits of the Complaint and found
that the Complaint failed to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Plaintiff was directed to amend
the Complaint because the allegations are prolix and unintelligible and failed to set forth a
clear statement of the basis for jurisdiction. Magistrate Judge Gallagher warned Plaintiff,
in the August 19, 2015 Order to Amend, that if he failed to comply with the Order to
Amend within the time allowed the Court would dismiss the action without further notice.
On August 24, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Letter, ECF No. 7, that for the most part is
unintelligible. Magistrate Judge Gallagher, however, did determine that Plaintiff was
requesting on extension of time to comply with the Order to Amend, and entered a Minute
Order, ECF No. 8, on September 23, 2015, that granted him up to and including October
14, 2015, to do so. (The September 23 Minute Order was returned to the Court after the
Court learned of Plaintiff’s new address and sent a second minute order to him at the new
address that granted another extension of time.)
Plaintiff submitted a second Letter, ECF No. 9, on October 1, 2015, informing the
Court of a change of address. Magistrate Judge Gallagher entered a second Minute
Order, ECF No. 10. on October 15, 2015, and directed the Clerk of the Court to resend the
August 19 Order to Plaintiff at the new address. The October 15 Minute Order also
allowed Plaintiff an additional twenty-one days to comply with the August 19 Order to
Amend, even though Plaintiff did not request an extension of time. Plaintiff was
instructed in the October 15 Minute Order that if he failed to comply within the time
allowed the action would be dismissed without further notice.
Plaintiff now has failed to comply with the August 19, 2015 Order to Amend within
the time allowed.
The Court finds Magistrate Judge Gallagher correctly determined that Plaintiff
failed to comply with Rule 8 and required him to amend the Complaint. The Court,
therefore, will dismiss the action for failure to comply with a Court order and to prosecute
within the time allowed. A[D]ismissal 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., 400 F.3d 853, 855 (10th Cir. 2005).
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 pampers in the Tenth Circuit within thirty days in accordance with Fed.
R. App. P. 24. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Complaint and action are dismissed without prejudice
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to file an Amended Complaint as directed
and for failure to prosecute. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pampers on appeal is
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this
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?