Jennings v. Lee

Filing 8

ORDER dismissing this action without prejudice, and denying without prejudice leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 11/13/15. (dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 15-cv-01914-GPG
JAMES E. JENNINGS,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHELLE K. LEE, Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and
Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, in her official
capacity,
Defendant.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On September 3, 2015, Plaintiff, a resident of Louisville, Colorado, initiated this
action by filing pro se a Title VII Complaint. (ECF No. 1). On September 10, 2015, the
Court determined that the Complaint was deficient and ordered Plaintiff to cure certain
designated deficiencies within thirty days if he wished to pursue his claims. (ECF No. 3).
Specifically, the Court ordered Plaintiff to: (1) submit a § 1915 Motion or pay the $400
filing fee, and (2) to submit his complaint on the current court-approved Title VII
Complaint Form.
In response, Plaintiff paid the filing fee in full (ECF No. 5) and submitted an
Amended Complaint (ECF No. 4). However, the Court determined the Amended
Complaint was still deficient. On October 15, 2015, the Court ordered Plaintiff to cure
certain designated deficiencies within thirty days. (ECF No. 6). Specifically, the Court
ordered Plaintiff to file his complaint on the current court-approved form and to provide
1

an address for the Defendant. (Id.) Plaintiff was warned that if he failed to cure the
designated deficiencies within the time allowed, the action would be dismissed without
further notice.
On October 29, 2015, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 7).
However, the Amended Complaint failed to cure the designated deficiencies as
described in Magistrate Judge Gallagher’s October 15, 2015 Order. The Amended
Complaint is not on the current court-approved form and it also fails to provide an
address for the defendant.
As Magistrate Judge Gallagher informed Plaintiff, Local Civil Rules 1.2 and 5.1(c)
for this Court require pro se litigants to use the Court-approved forms found on the
Court’s website. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit repeatedly
has upheld the requirement that pro se litigants comply with local court rules requiring
use of proper Court-approved forms. See Georgacarakos v. Watts, 368 F. App'x 917,
918-19 (10th Cir. 2010) (district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing civil
rights action without prejudice for federal prisoner's noncompliance with local rules
requiring use of proper court-approved form to file complaint and district court's order to
comply). Plaintiff has failed – after two specific orders – to file his complaint on the
court-approved form. Accordingly, his amended complaint and this action will be
dismissed for failure to follow a court order.
Furthermore, the Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any
appeal from this order would not be 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 he also must pay the full $505
2

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 Amended Complaint (ECF No. 7) and the action are
dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure because Mr. Jennings failed to comply with a court order and local rules. It
is
FURTHER ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is
denied without prejudice to the filing of a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma
pauperis on appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this

13th

day of

November

, 2015.

BY THE COURT:
s/Lewis T. Babcock___________
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court

3