You're viewing Docket Item 7 from the case Pinson v. Berkebile. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 1:13-cv-01953-LTB Document 7 Filed 09/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 13-cv-01953-BNB

JEREMY PINSON,

Applicant,

v.

DAVID BERKEBILE


Respondent.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Applicant, Jeremy Pinson, is in the custody of the United States Bureau of

Prisons and currently is incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary in Florence,

Colorado. On July 22, 2013, Mr. Pinson, acting pro se, filed an Application for a Writ of

Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Upon review of the Application,

Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer entered an order, on July 30, 2013, directing

Applicant to file an Amended Application. Applicant specifically was instructed that Rule

4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts

requires he go beyond notice pleading, see Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75 n.7

(1977), and that naked allegations of constitutional violations devoid of factual support

are not cognizable in a federal habeas action, see Ruark v. Gunter, 958 F.2d 318, 319

(10th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). Applicant further was instructed that he must identify the

incident report number for each disciplinary action that he is challenging and state how

his rights were violated in each associated disciplinary proceeding.

Case 1:13-cv-01953-LTB Document 7 Filed 09/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2

Upon review of the Application, the Court finds that Magistrate Judge Shaffer

correctly determined that Applicant should amend the Application. Applicant now has

failed to communicate with the Court, and as a result he has failed to comply with

Magistrate Judge Shaffer’s July 30, 2013 Order within the time allowed. Therefore, the

action will be dismissed.

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 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 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 is denied and the action is dismissed without

prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to file an Amended Application 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 17th day of September , 2013.

BY THE COURT:

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

2