Killock v. Geo Corr. Hudson Corr. Facility

Full title: NICOLE D. KILLOCK, Plaintiff v. GEO CORRECTIONS HUDSON CORRECTIONAL…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Jan 27, 2014

Civil Action No. 13-cv-02954-BNB (D. Colo. Jan. 27, 2014)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 13-cv-02954-BNB

01-27-2014

NICOLE D. KILLOCK, Plaintiff v. GEO CORRECTIONS HUDSON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, JOE DRIVER, Warden, WILLIAMS, Assistant Warden, TERRY ANDING, Investigator, CORY FOX, Special Investigator, COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, PRIVATE PRISONS MONITORING UNIT, and JOSEPH SCHMIDT, Alaska Department of Corrections, Commissioner, Defendants.

LEWIS T. BABCOCK

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, Nicole D. Killock, currently is incarcerated at the Las Vista Correctional Facility in Pueblo, Colorado. Plaintiff initiated this action by filing pro se a Prisoner Complaint and was granted leave to proceed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. After review of the Complaint, Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland determined that Plaintiff failed to assert personal participation by properly named defendants and to present her claims in keeping with Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir. 2007). Magistrate Judge Boland directed Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint. Plaintiff was given thirty days to file the Amended Complaint. Plaintiff now has failed to communicate with the Court and as a result has failed to file the Amended Complaint within the time allowed.

The Court finds that Magistrate Judge Boland correctly instructed Plaintiff to amend and assert personal participation and to comply with Nasious. The action will be dismissed because Plaintiff has failed to file an Amended Complaint within the time allowed.

Finally, the Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order is not 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 must also 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 Complaint and action are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to file an Amended Complaint and for failure to prosecute. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied.

DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 27^th day of January, 2014.

BY THE COURT:

__________

LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge

United States District Court