Flores v. United States Attorney General et al

Filing 9

ORDER dismissing this action without prejudice, and denying without prejudice leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 11/30/15. 3 Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs and 4 "Motion to Transfer Multidistrict Litigation to the District of Columbia Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. & 1407 for Coordinated and Consolidated Pretrial Proceedings by Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation" are denied as moot. (dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 15-cv-02302-GPG
ERIC FLORES,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, and
FEDERAL BUREA OF INVESTIGATION,
Respondents.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Petitioner, Eric Flores, initiated this action by filing pro se a sixty-four page
“Petition to Challenge the Constitutionality of the First Amendment” (ECF 1), an
Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Short Form)
(ECF 3), a thirty-one page “Motion to Transfer Multidistrict Litigation to the District of
Columbia Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. & 1407 For Coordinated and Consolidated Pretrial
Proceedings By Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation” (ECF 4), a “Judicial Notice of
Leave of Courts Previous Order of Any Filing Restriction Against the Petitioner to File
Petition that is Seeking Relief from Imminent Danger such as Death in the Public
Interest of Health and Safety” (ECF 5), and a Letter (ECF No. 6). The Court reviewed
the documents and determined that they were deficient. In an October 20, 2015 Order
to Cure Deficiencies, the Court noted that Mr. Flores is no stranger to the federal court
system, having filed over 270 cases in federal courts across the nation. The Court also
warned Mr. Flores that any attempt to relitigate the same issues that were addressed

previously or are currently pending in other federal courts would result in filing
restrictions. The Court directed Mr. Flores to cure certain enumerated deficiencies in
the case within thirty days if he wished to pursue his claims, including filing his
complaint and application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs on the courtapproved forms. The Court also warned Mr. Flores that if he failed to cure the
designated deficiencies within thirty days, the action would be dismissed without further
notice.
On November 13, 2015, the copy of the October 20 Order to Cure that was
mailed to Mr. Flores at the address he provided was returned to the Court as
undeliverable. The returned envelope (ECF No. 8) bears a stamp or sticker that reads
“RETURN TO SENDER, NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED, UNABLE TO
FORWARD.”
Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LAttyR 5 of the Local Rules of Practice of the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado-Attorney, an unrepresented party must
file a notice of new address within five days of any change of address. Mr. Flores has
failed to comply with the Court’s local rules and, as a result, he has failed within the time
allowed to cure the deficiencies as directed. Therefore, the petition and the action will
be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to cure deficiencies.
Furthermore, the Court certifies pursuant to § 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 Mr. Flores files a notice of appeal he also must pay the full $505.00 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 Petition (ECF No. 1) and the action are dismissed without
prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because
Petitioner, Eric Flores, failed to prosecute and cure deficiencies within the time allowed.
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. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Application to Proceed in District Court Without
Prepaying Fees or Costs (ECF No. 3) and “Motion to Transfer Multidistrict Litigation to
the District of Columbia Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. & 1407 for Coordinated and
Consolidated Pretrial Proceedings by Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation” (ECF No.
4) are denied as moot.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 30th

day of

November

, 2015.

BY THE COURT:

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