Opinion
Civil Action No. 12-cv-02255-BNB
10-15-2012
HAROLD HICKS, III, Plaintiff, v. STERLING GEESAMAN, and NANCY KROLL, Defendants.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
On September 4, 2012, Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland entered an order directing Plaintiff, Harold Hicks, III, to file a second amended complaint that provides an address for Defendant Nancy Kroll and that complies with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Mr. Hicks was warned that the action would be dismissed without further notice if he failed to file a second amended complaint within thirty days.
Mr. Hicks has failed to file a second amended complaint within the time allowed and he has failed to respond in any way to Magistrate Judge Boland's September 4 order. Therefore, the action will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with a court order.
Furthermore, the Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 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 $455 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, the amended complaint, and the action are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because Mr. Hicks failed to comply with a court order. 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.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 15th day of October , 2012.
BY THE COURT:
________________________
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court