United States District Court, D. Colorado
May 26, 2015
LEROY W. BAKER, Plaintiff,
OFFICER HILLYER, Employee Sterling Correctional Facility, OFFICER ROSE, Employee Sterling Correctional Facility, OFFICER RHOSE, Employee Sterling Correctional Facility, and ALL OTHER UNIDENTIFIED EMPLOYEES RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TAKING OF PROPERTY WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION, Defendants.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, SENIOR JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff Leroy W. Baker is in the custody of the Colorado Department of Corrections and currently is incarcerated at the Sterling Correctional Facility in Sterling, Colorado. This action was initiated on April 13, 2015, when Plaintiff submitted a Complaint and a Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed pursuant to § 1915.
On April 15, 2015, Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher entered an Order to Show Cause why the action should not be dismissed as repetitive of Baker v. Hillyer, et al., No. 14-cv-02444-LTB (D. Colo. Sept. 30, 2014). Magistrate Judge Gallagher found that Plaintiff makes the identical allegations and names the same defendants in this action as he did in Case No. 14-cv-02444-LTB. Plaintiff was directed to respond to the April 15 Order within thirty days from the date of the Order and state why this action should be dismissed as repetitive of Case No. 14-cv-02444-LTB. Plaintiff was warned that if he failed to show cause within the time allowed the Court would dismiss the action as repetitious.
Plaintiff filed a Response on May 21, 2015. The Response, however, fails to show cause to the Court’s satisfaction that this action is not repetitive of Case No. 14-cv-02444-LTB. Plaintiff refers to Case No. 15-cv-00043-LTB as the previous case the Court has identified, rather than Case No. 14-cv-02444-LTB, and his arguments are nonresponsive and somewhat prolix, vague, and unintelligible. The Court, therefore, will dismiss the action as repetitious and legally frivolous pursuant to Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988); Van Meter v. Morgan, 518 F.2d 366, 368 (8th Cir. 1975) (per curiam). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Complaint and action are repetitious and are dismissed with prejudice as legally frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). It is
FURTHER ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied.