Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Haynes v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.

United States District Court, D. Colorado

January 15, 2014

ROGER LEE HAYNES, and ROGER LEE HAYNES JUNIOR, Plaintiffs,
v.
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO., ANTONIO ROBERTSON, and AUDREY ANN DINGMAN ROBERTSON, Defendants.

ORDER DIRECTING MR. HAYNES TO CURE DEFICIENCIES

BOYD N. BOLAND, Magistrate Judge.

On January 14, 2014, Mr. Haynes submitted an "Affidavit of Financial Status in Support to Application for Appointment of Counsel" and forty-seven additional pages of correspondence, court orders, statements, and miscellaneous items. As part of the Court's review pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 8.1(A), the Court has determined that the documents are deficient as described in this Order. Mr. Haynes will be directed to cure the following if he wishes to pursue any claims in this Court in this action. Any papers that Mr. Haynes files in response to this Order must include the civil action number on this Order.

Mr. Haynes also included with the attached documents an order that was entered in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas (District of Kansas) in Haynes v. Union Pacific Railroad, et al., No. 00-01321-JTM (D. Kan. Dec. 8, 2000). See ECF No. 1 at 14-32. This action concerned Mr. Haynes' on-the-job injury and termination of employment by Union Pacific Railroad on March 7, 1988. Id. at 31. The case was dismissed as barred by the statutes of limitations, and Mr. Haynes was enjoined from filing any further actions in the District of Kansas that arise out of the injury and the subsequent March 7 termination. Id. Mr. Haynes is warned that this Court does not tolerate the abuse of the federal court system and any attempt by Mr. Haynes to relitigate the issues that were addressed by the District of Kansas in Case No. 00-1321-JTM will result in the same filing restrictions in this Court that are in place in the District of Kansas.

28 U.S.C. § 1915 Motion and Affidavit:

(1) X is not submitted (It is not clear if Roger Lee Haynes and Roger Lee Haynes Jr. are the same person. If they are not the same person a § 1915 motion must must be provided for each named Plaintiff)

(2) ___ is missing affidavit

(3) ___ is missing certified copy of prisoner's trust fund statement for the 6-month period immediately preceding this filing

(4) ___ is missing certificate showing current balance in prison account

(5) ___ is missing required financial information

(6) ___ is missing authorization to calculate and disburse filing fee payments

(7) ___ is missing an original signature by the prisoner

(8) ___ is not on proper form (Must use Court-approved form revised October 1, 2012)

(9) ___ names in caption do not match names in caption of complaint, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.