You're viewing Docket Item 6 from the case Robledo-Valdez v. State of Colorado, The et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 1:13-cv-01417-LTB Document 6 Filed 07/11/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 13-cv-01417-BNB

CRAIG S. ROBLEDO-VALDEZ,

Applicant,

v.

SUSAN PAMERLEAU, et al., and
COLO. PAROLE BOARD,

Respondents.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Applicant, Craig S. Robledo-Valdez, is an inmate at the Bexar County Jail in San

Antonio, Texas. Mr. Robledo-Valdez initiated this action by filing pro se a “Petition for

Habeus [sic] Corpus Pursuant to U.S.C. § 2241” (ECF No. 1). On June 4, 2013,

Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland entered an order directing Mr. Robledo-Valdez to

cure certain deficiencies if he wished to pursue his claims in this action. Specifically,

Magistrate Judge Boland directed Mr. Robledo-Valdez to file on the proper form an

Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and either to pay

the $5.00 filing fee or to file a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 along with a certificate from an appropriate jail official

showing the balance in his inmate account. Mr. Robledo-Valdez was warned that the

action would be dismissed without further notice if he failed to cure the deficiencies

within thirty days.

On June 14, 2013, Mr. Robledo-Valdez filed on the proper forms a Prisoner’s

Case 1:13-cv-01417-LTB Document 6 Filed 07/11/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3

Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 in a Habeas

Corpus Action (ECF No. 4) and an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 5). However, he has failed to cure all of the deficiencies

within the time allowed because he has not submitted a certificate from an appropriate

jail official showing the balance in his inmate account as directed. Therefore, the action

will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to cure all of the deficiencies.

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 Applicant 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 “Petition for Habeus [sic] Corpus Pursuant to U.S.C. § 2241”

(ECF No. 1) and the Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2241 (ECF No. 5) are denied and the action is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to

Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because Mr. Robledo-Valdez failed

to cure all of 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

2

Case 1:13-cv-01417-LTB Document 6 Filed 07/11/13 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3

FURTHER ORDERED that the Prisoner’s Motion and Affidavit for Leave to

Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 in a Habeas Corpus Action (ECF No. 4) is

denied as moot.

DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 11th day of July , 2013.

BY THE COURT:

s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court

3