Wright v. BC Services

Filing 5

ORDER dismissing this action, and denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 3/31/16. 2 Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed On Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Fed. R. App. P. 24 is denied. (dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 16-cv-00429-GPG

CURTIS L. WRIGHT,
Plaintiff,
v.
BC SERVICES,
Defendant.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On February 22, 2016, Plaintiff Curtis L. Wright initiated this action by filing pro
se a Complaint (ECF No. 1) and a Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed On Appeal
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Fed. R. App. P. 24 (ECF No. 2).
As part of the Court’s review pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 8.1(a), the Court
determined that Plaintiff’s documents were deficient. In an order (ECF No. 4) entered
on February 25, 2016, Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher directed Plaintiff to cure
the deficiencies if he wished to pursue his claims. Specifically, Magistrate Judge
Gallagher informed Plaintiff that he needed to file his complaint on the court-approved
form for pro se plaintiffs, and to submit an Application to Proceed in District Court
Without Prepaying Fees or Costs on the court-approved form. The February 25 order
also informed Plaintiff that the action would be dismissed without further notice if he
failed to cure the deficiencies within thirty days.
No further pleadings have been filed by Plaintiff to date. Because Plaintiff has

failed to cure the deficiencies within the time allowed, the action will be dismissed
without prejudice.
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 and the action are dismissed without prejudice
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to cure the deficiencies and for failure to
prosecute. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is
DENIED. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed On
Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Fed. R. App. P. 24 (ECF No. 2), is 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

2