Rodgers v. Beatte et al
Filing
15
ORDER dismissing this action without prejudice, and denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 9/30/15. (dkals, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-01645-GPG
RICHARD ANIKKI@ RODGERS, a.k.a. RACHAEL B. RODGERS,
Plaintiff,
v.
DR. BEATLE, Mental Health,
ELIZABETH HOGAN, M.D. Chief Psychiatrist,
MRS. BOYD, Nurse of C.S.P. Clinical Services, and
TRAVIS TRANI, Warden of C.S.P.,
Defendants.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff Richard ANikki@ Rodgers, a.k.a. Rachael B. Rodgers, is in the custody of
the Colorado Department of Corrections and currently is incarcerated at the Colorado
State Penitentiary in CaƱon City, Colorado. Plaintiff, a pro se litigant, initiated this action
by filing a Complaint Pursuant to C.R.C.P. Rule 106.5, ECF No. 1, and an Inmate Motion
Requesting to File Without Prepayment of Filing/Service Fees Pursuant to ' 13-17.5-103,
ECF No. 2. Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher found the filings deficient and
ordered Plaintiff to cure the deficiencies if she desired to proceed with this action.
Plaintiff cured, and on August 22, 2015, she was granted leave to proceed in forma
pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915.
Upon review of the Complaint, Magistrate Judge Gallagher determined that
Plaintiff=s claims are identical to the claims she raises in Rodgers v. Sinker, et al., No.
15-cv-00174-CMA-NYW (D. Colo. Filed Jan. 26, 2015). Magistrate Judge Gallagher
also found that on August 20, 2015, Plaintiff submitted a supplemental complaint in this
1
case and in Case No. 15-cv-00174-CMA-NYW that asserts the same claims and names
the same defendants. The Court further finds that Plaintiff has been appointed pro bono
counsel in Case No. 15-cv-00174-CMA-NYW. See Rodgers, No.
15-cv-00174-CMA-NYW at ECF No. 62.
Magistrate Judge Gallagher entered an Order to Show Cause on August 24, 2015,
directing Plaintiff to respond and show cause why this action should not be dismissed as
repetitious of Case No. 15-cv-00174-CMA-NYW. 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).
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 will be denied
for the purpose of appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962). If
Plaintiff files a notice of appeal she must pay the full $505 appellate filing fee or file a
motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit within thirty days in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 24.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Complaint and action are repetitious and are dismissed
without 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. It is
2
FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions are denied as moot.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this
30th
day of
September
, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court
3
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?