King v. Raemisch

Full title: JEFFERY DAVID KING, Applicant, v. RICK RAEMISCH, Executive Director…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Jan 12, 2015

Civil Action No. 14-cv-03204-GPG (D. Colo. Jan. 12, 2015)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 14-cv-03204-GPG

01-12-2015

JEFFERY DAVID KING, Applicant, v. RICK RAEMISCH, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Corrections, and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, Respondents.

LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge United States District Court

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On November 25, 2014, Applicant Jeffery David King initiated this action by filing an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On December 4, 2014, Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher entered an order and directed Applicant either to submit a request to proceed in forma pauperis on a proper Court-approved form or in the alternative to pay the $5 filing fee. Applicant was warned that the action would be dismissed without further notice if he failed to cure the deficiencies within thirty days.

Applicant now has failed to communicate with the Court. As a result, he has failed to cure the deficiencies within the time allowed. The Court, therefore, will dismiss the action.

The Court also 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 is denied for the purpose of appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962). If Applicant 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 Tenth Circuit within thirty days in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 24. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the action is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to cure the deficiencies and for failure to prosecute. It is

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

FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue because Applicant has failed to show that jurists of reason would find it debatable that the district court was correct in its procedural ruling. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000).

DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 12^th day of January, 2015.

BY THE COURT:

s/Lewis T. Babcock

LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge

United States District Court