Opinion
Civil Action No. 12-cv-02042-BNB
10-18-2012
FIFI MENO INGILA, Plaintiff, v. DISH NETWORK, Defendant.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff, Fifi Meno Ingila, initiated this action by filing pro se a Title VII Complaint (ECF No. 1). On August 14, 2012, Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer entered an order directing Ms. Ingila to file an amended complaint that complies with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Magistrate Judge Shaffer specifically directed Ms. Ingila that she must file her amended complaint on the court-approved Title VII Complaint form. Ms. Ingila also was warned that the action would be dismissed without further notice if she failed to file an amended complaint within thirty days.
On August 21, 2012, Ms. Ingila submitted to the Court for filing a set of documents totaling 139 pages that she describes as a copy of the file she received from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). (See ECF No. 8.) On September 14, 2012, Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland entered a second order directing Ms. Ingila to file an amended complaint if she wishes to pursue her claims in this action. Magistrate Judge Boland noted in the September 14 order that the documents Ms. Ingila submitted to the Court on August 21 did not satisfy the August 14 order directing her to file an amended complaint on the court-approved form and that the documents did not provide a short and plain statement of her employment discrimination claims as required by Rule 8. Magistrate Judge Boland reiterated that Ms. Ingila must file an amended complaint on the court-approved form that clarifies the specific claims for relief she is asserting and the specific facts that support those claims. Ms. Ingila again was warned that the action would be dismissed without further notice if she failed to file an amended complaint on the court-approved form within thirty days.
On September 24, 2012, Ms. Ingila filed in this action a letter to the Court (ECF No. 10) in which she describes the harassment she alleges she endured while employed by Defendant. Attached to the letter is a copy of a Charge of Discrimination Ms. Ingila apparently submitted to the EEOC on February 23, 2010, in which she complained about retaliation for a December 2009 EEOC charge; a copy of a letter dated March 11, 2010, to representatives of Defendant from an attorney representing Ms. Ingila before the EEOC regarding alleged retaliation for filing the December 2009 EEOC charge; and a copy of a medical record relevant to an appointment for Ms. Ingila in July 2011. (See ECF No. 10 at 2-5.) On October 15, 2012, Ms. Ingila filed a one-page letter to the Court (ECF No. 11) requesting injunctive relief. On October 16, 2012, Ms. Ingila filed another one-page letter to the Court (ECF No. 12) requesting injunctive relief.
Ms. Ingila has failed to file an amended complaint on the court-approved form within the time allowed and the filings she has submitted do not provide a short and plain statement of the claims she seeks to pursue in this action. Therefore, the action will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with court orders.
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 she 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 and the action are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because Ms. Ingila failed to comply with court orders directing her to file an amended complaint on the court-approved form that complies with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the pending requests for injunctive relief (ECF Nos. 11 & 12) are 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.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 18th day of October, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
_____________
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court