Hartmann v. Douglas County District Court et al

Filing 7

ORDER dismissing this action with prejudice, and denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 5/28/15. (dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-00847-GPG
SARA M. HARTMANN,
Plaintiff,
v.
DOUGLAS COUNTY DISTRICT COURT,
TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK,
DOUGLAS COUNTY, CO.,
CASTLE ROCK POLICE DEPT.,
DOUGLAS COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFC.,
LITTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT,
ARAPAHOE COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFC., and
DOUGLAS COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM,
Defendants.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff Sara M. Hartmann currently resides in San Francisco, California. This
action was initiated on April 22, 2015, when Plaintiff submitted a Complaint and an
Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form).
Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
On April 23, 2015, Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher entered an Order to
Show Cause why the action should not be dismissed as repetitive of Hartmann v.
Douglas County, Colo., et al., No. 12-cv-03309-LTB (D. Colo. Feb. 7, 2013) (involved
divorce proceeding in State of Colorado; dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction). Magistrate Judge Gallagher found that in this case Plaintiff names many of
the same defendants and raises the same claims as she did in Case No. 12-cv-03309LTB.

Plaintiff was directed to respond to the April 23 Order within thirty days from the
date of the Order and state why this action should not be dismissed as repetitive of
Case No. 12-cv-03309-LTB. Plaintiff was warned that if she failed to show cause within
the time allowed the Court would dismiss the action as repetitious.
Plaintiff now has failed to respond within the time allowed. The Court, therefore,
will dismiss the action as repetitious and legally frivolous pursuant to Bailey v. Johnson,
846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988); Van Meter v. Morgan, 518 F.2d 366, 368 (8th Cir.
1975) (per curiam). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Complaint and action are repetitious and are dismissed with
prejudice as legally frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). It is
FURTHER ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is
denied.
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

2