WELLINGTON WEBB; GERRY WHITMAN; RAYMOND G. SANCHEZ, Attorney at Law; JOE JARAMILLO, also known as El Wino Jaramillo; REBECCA I. JARAMILLO; TOMASITA JARMARILLO; DAVID SANTILLANS, Family Crime Boss; JANE DOE GORDON; JOHN DOE MCBRIDE, #89-23; MARY DOE DOBBINS, #00-75; JOHN DOE ADDISON, #00-25; JOHN DOE COLBURN; MARY DOE MADRID, P.A.; JOHN DOE SANTANGELO; JOHN DOE LOVATO, S.C., JOHN DOE MAYER; VICKI O'CONNOR; I.C. LEWIS, Prison # 1267871; STEVE ROBERTS, prison # 1269128; MARK PITTMAN, prison # 1246423; TED MARTINEZ, N.M. Prison # 25593; FOX COMMUNICATIONS CORP.; KOOL RADIO; JOHN DOE LADD, # 91-33; DAVID PONDERELLI; JOHN DOE SOMMERVILLE; JOHN DOE PABLO; JOHN DOE ORTEGA # 92-93; JANE DOE OATS; PAULA WOODWARD, 9 News, Denver; ANDREW LISKA; DAVID GLEIM; SHIRLEY MAZERECK,
(D.C. No. 02-Z-991)
In his complaint, Dr. Fleetwood alleges that the defendants unlawfully conspired to extort money from him and to incarcerate him. On May 23, 2002, the district court issued an order requiring Dr. Fleetwood to correct certain deficiencies in his complaint within thirty days. The deficiencies included the failure to submit a certified trust fund statement; certain pages of the complaint form; an original and copies of the complaint, motion to proceed IFP, and supporting affidavit; and sufficient copies of the complaint for the purpose of service on the named defendants.
Dr. Fleetwood then filed a motion requesting a stay of the action for one year while he prepared the necessary documents. A magistrate judge denied the request for a one-year stay but granted Dr. Fleetwood an additional thirty days to cure the deficiencies. Dr. Fleetwood failed to file the required documents before the expiration of the second thirty-day period, and the district court then dismissed the action without prejudice.
We discern no error in the district court's approach. As the district court observed, Dr. Fleetwood may initiate a new action by filing the required documents with the district court.
We note that in his appellate brief, Dr. Fleetwood argues that the defendants have deprived him of access to a law library and to documents necessary to pursue his claims. However, if there are circumstances that prevent Dr. Fleetwood from submitting the documents required by the district court, he may seek relief from that court. The arguments he makes here do not suggest that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint without prejudice.
Accordingly, we DENY his motion to proceed IFP and DISMISS this appeal.
Robert H. Henry
*. This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of unpublished orders; nevertheless, this order may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.