Ford v. No Named Defendants

Filing 10

ORDER dismissing this action without prejudice, and denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 10/16/15. 2 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-01627-GPG

FRANK FORD,
Plaintiff,
v.
NO NAMED DEFENDANTS,
Defendants.

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

Plaintiff, Frank Ford, is a resident of Denver, Colorado. On July 30, 2015, he
filed pro se a Complaint (ECF No. 1) and an Application to Proceed in District Court
Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form) (ECF No. 2). The Complaint did not
name any Defendants or claims but the attached documents appear to allege that he
was denied an Oreo Sweepstakes prize in 1986. (ECF No. 1 at 9). On August 5, 2015,
the Court ordered Plaintiff to cure certain deficiencies in his submitted documents if he
wished to pursue his case. (ECF No. 4). Specifically, the Court ordered Plaintiff to
submit a complete § 1915 Motion or, in the alternative, to pay the $400 filing fee and to
submit a signed and complete Complaint. The Court notified Plaintiff that a complete
Complaint should include: identifying the Defendants, asserting a basis for federal
jurisdiction, and stating claims for relief, supporting factual allegations, and a request for
relief. (Id.) The Court also warned Plaintiff that if he failed to cure the designated
deficiencies in the time allowed, the action would be dismissed without further notice.
1

On August 26, 2015, Plaintiff filed a letter with the Court stating, “I’m sorry I don’t
have $400 to send to your U.S. District Court. I have to let this case go.” (ECF No. 5).
After reviewing Mr. Ford’s letter, it was unclear if Mr. Ford understood the Court’s
August 5, 2015 Order to Cure regarding his § 1915 motion. Accordingly, on September
11, 2015, the Court issued a Second Order to Cure Deficiencies and explained to Mr.
Ford that he was not required to pay the filing fee at this time but that the court was
ordering him to either pay the filing fee or cure the deficiencies in his § 1915 motion.
(ECF No. 6 at 2). The Court gave Mr. Ford another opportunity to cure the designated
deficiencies in his § 1915 motion and complaint. He was ordered to cure the
designated deficiencies within thirty days of the Court’s September 11, 2015 Order. He
was again warned that if he failed to cure the designated deficiencies within the time
allowed, the action would be dismissed without further notice.
In response, Plaintiff has filed three letters with the Court. (ECF Nos. 7-9). His
first letter attempts to explain the factual circumstances regarding the oreo game he
claims to have won in 1986. (ECF No. 7). The second letter appears to recite facts
regarding a Jefferson County Court order that terminated his parental rights in 1999.
(ECF No. 8). And, finally, the third letter complains that the Greyhound Bus Lines took
his puppet show and did not return it to him. (ECF No. 9).
None of these letters cured the deficiencies in Mr. Ford’s Complaint and § 1915
Motion. The second and third letters appear to have nothing to do with the current
case. Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to cure the deficiencies within the time allowed.
The action will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to cure the designated
deficiencies.
2

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 with Fed. R. App. P. 24. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Complaint (ECF No. 1) and the action are DISMISSED
without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to comply with a court
order and cure the deficiencies in his complaint and § 1915 motion. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is
denied. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the pending Application to Proceed in District Court
Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (ECF No. 2) is DENIED as moot.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this

16th

day of

October

, 2015.

BY THE COURT:

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

3