Robinson v. El Paso County Dept. of Human Services et al

Filing 6

ORDER dismissing this action, and denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 3/31/16. (dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 16-cv-00404-GPG
COREY PATRICK ROBINSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
EL PASO COUNTY DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES,
COLORADO SPRINGS HOUSING AUTHORITY, and
BENNETTE VALLEY INVESTMENTS,
Defendants.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff Corey Patrick Robinson currently resides in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
Plaintiff initiated this action by filing pro se a Complaint and an Application to Proceed in
District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. On February 25, 2016, Magistrate
Gordon P. Gallagher granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Magistrate Judge Gallagher then reviewed the merits of the Complaint, found
that it failed to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, and directed Plaintiff to submit an
amended complaint. (See ECF No. 5). Specifically, Magistrate Judge Gallagher
informed Plaintiff that he failed to assert a statutory basis for jurisdiction for his claims
and did not provide a short and plain statement of his claims showing that he is entitled
to relief. Further, Magistrate Judge Gallagher instructed Plaintiff that if he intended to
assert a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he must identify (1) what the named
defendant did to him; (2) when the defendant did the action; (3) how the action harmed

1

him; and (4) what specific legal right the defendant violated. Magistrate Judge
Gallagher also told Plaintiff that he must allege personal participation by the named
Defendants in the alleged constitutional violations, and articulated the standards for
supervisory and municipality liability. Magistrate Judge Gallagher further informed
Plaintiff that the State of Colorado and its entities are immune from suit for money
damages under the Eleventh Amendment; but that the Eleventh Amendment does not
bar a federal court action so long as a plaintiff seeks in substance only prospective relief
and not retrospective relief for alleged violations of federal law against individual state
officers. Finally, Magistrate Judge Gallagher told Plaintiff that he cannot state a claim
based upon alleged violations of HIPPA because HIPPA does not create a private right
of action.
This Court finds that Magistrate Judge Gallagher (1) correctly determined that the
Complaint failed to comply with Rule 8; and (2) stated with detail what Plaintiff needed
to do to amend in compliance with Rule 8. Because Plaintiff now has failed to comply
with the February 25, 2016 Order to Amend within the time allowed, the Court will
dismiss the action.
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 pampers in the Tenth Circuit within thirty days in accordance
with Fed. R. App. P. 24. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Complaint and action are dismissed without prejudice
2

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to file an Amended Complaint and for failure
to prosecute. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pampers on appeal is
denied. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions are denied as moot.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 31st

day of

March

, 2016.

BY THE COURT:

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

3