Opinion
Civil Action No. 13-cv-02299-BNB
2013-10-03
CRAIG ROBLEDO, Applicant, v. DIRECTOR GARY WILSON, and JANET RUSSELL, Respondents.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Applicant, Craig Robledo, initiated this action while he was an inmate at the Denver County Jail by filing pro se an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1) and a "Request for Immediate Preliminary Assistance" (ECF No. 3). On August 27, 2013, Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland entered an order directing Mr. Robledo to cure certain deficiencies if he wished to pursue his claims in this action. Specifically, Magistrate Judge Boland directed Mr. Robledo either to pay the $5.00 filing fee or to file on the court-approved form a Prisoner's Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 in a Habeas Corpus Action. Mr. Robledo was warned that the action would be dismissed without further notice if he failed to cure the deficiencies within thirty days.
On September 12, 2013, Mr. Robledo filed a "Request for Emergency Relief" (ECF No. 5) and a document titled "Plaintiff[']s Advisory and Request" (ECF No. 6) that are not relevant to the deficiencies he was ordered to cure. On September 13, 2013, Mr. Robledo filed a "Notice of Intent" (ECF No. 8) that also is not relevant to the deficiencies he was ordered to cure. On September 18, 2013, Mr. Robledo filed a "Notice of Change of Address" (ECF No. 9) stating that he has been transferred to the custody of the Colorado Department of Corrections. On October 1, 2013, Mr. Robledo filed another "Notice of Change of Address" (ECF No. 12).
On September 20, 2013, Mr. Robledo filed a "Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis § 1915" (ECF No. 10). However, Mr. Robledo has failed to cure the deficiencies within the time allowed because the motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is not on the court-approved form as directed and as required by the District of Colorado local rules. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 8.2A. Therefore, the instant action will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to cure the deficiencies. The Court also notes that the instant action appears to be repetitive of another habeas corpus action Mr. Robledo filed in the District of Colorado raising the same or substantially similar claims that remains pending. See Robledo v. Colo. Dept. of Corrections, No. 13-cv-02084-BNB (D. Colo. filed Aug. 5, 2013).
Finally, 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 Applicant 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 Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1) is denied and the action is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because Mr. Robledo failed to cure the deficiencies as directed. 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. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability will issue because Applicant has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the "Request for Immediate Preliminary Assistance" (ECF No. 3) and the "Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis § 1915" (ECF No. 10) are DENIED as moot.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 3rd day of October, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
____________
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court