Buy This Entire Record For
Krneta v. Brown
United States District Court, D. Colorado
August 25, 2014
MELANI KRNETA, Plaintiff,
MELODY M. BROWN, M.A., LMFT, CU Denver Student & Community Counseling Center, PAT LARSEN, Psy.D., CU Denver Student & Community Counseling Center, LUCY MCGRUFFY, CHAS CU Denver, J. JEFFERY FRANKLIN, Ph.D., CU Denver Dean's Office, SAMANTHA J. ORTIZ, Ph.D., CU Denver Univer. Life & Dean of Students, LARRY LOFTEN, CU Denver Offices of Community Standards & Wellness, and JILL L. CREIGHTON, Ed.M., CU Denver Offices of Community Standards & Wellness, Defendants.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior District Judge.
Plaintiff, Melani Krneta, resides in Denver. She filed pro se a Complaint (ECF No. 10) for money damages pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and asserted constitutional violations under the First and Fourteenth amendments apparently pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. She also filed a Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (ECF No. 5). Ms. Krneta was granted leave to proceed pursuant to § 1915.
On July 14, 2014, Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland entered an order directing Ms. Krneta to file within thirty days an amended Complaint that asserted facts supporting her ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and § 1983 claims; complied with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; sued the proper parties; and alleged the personal participation of the defendants she claims violated her civil rights. Magistrate Judge Boland warned Ms. Krneta that even if the instant action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with the July 14 order, the dismissal may bar recovery if Ms. Krneta seeks to refile in this Court because the various limitations periods may have run on her ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and § 1983 claims.
Ms. Krneta has failed within the time allowed to file an amended Complaint or otherwise communicate with the Court in any way. Therefore, the Complaint and the action will be dismissed for her failure to file an amended Complaint as directed within the time allowed, and for her failure to prosecute.
Finally, 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 Ms. Krneta files a notice of appeal she 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 Complaint and the action are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rules 8 and 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the failure of Plaintiff, Melani Krneta, to file within the time allowed an amended Complaint that complied with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as directed in the order of July 14, 2014, and for her failure to prosecute. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on ...