Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Smith v. Adams County Combined Court Detention Facility

United States District Court, D. Colorado

August 18, 2014

MATTHEW ALAN SMITH, Plaintiff,
v.
ADAMS COUNTY COMBINED COURT DETENTION FACILITY, PD, DA, and THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE/CORRECTIONS, Defendants.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior District Judge.

Plaintiff, Matthew Alan Smith, has submitted to the Court pro se an Amended Complaint (ECF No. 1) and an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Short Form) (ECF No. 3). For the reasons stated below, the action will be dismissed.

Mr. Smith is subject to a sanction order that restricts his ability to file pro se actions. See Smith v. Byron White 10 th Circuit Fed. Court, No. 14-cv-00669-LTB (D. Colo. Mar. 10, 2014). The sanction order was entered on April 4, 2014. ( See id. at ECF No. 7.) In the sanction order, Mr. Smith was "prohibited from filing any new action in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado without the representation of a licensed attorney admitted to practice in the District of Colorado unless he obtains permission to proceed pro se " by following the procedures specified in the sanction order. In order to proceed pro se, the sanction order requires Mr. Smith to submit to the Court a motion requesting leave to file a pro se action that includes certain information along with a copy of the proposed new pleading to be filed in the pro se action.

Mr. Smith is not represented by an attorney in the instant action, and he has not obtained leave of court to proceed pro se. Mr. Smith also has not filed a motion for leave to file a pro se action as required by the sanction order in 14-cv-00669-LTB and he has made no attempt to comply with the terms of the sanction order. Therefore, the action will be dismissed for failure to comply with the sanction order.

Furthermore, the Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 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 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 and the action are dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with the sanction order restricting Plaintiff's ability to file pro se actions in this Court. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Short Form) (ECF No. 3) is DENIED as moot. 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.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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