From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hampton v. Ortiz

United States District Court, D. Colorado
Apr 3, 2008
Civil Action No. 07-cv-01732-ZLW (D. Colo. Apr. 3, 2008)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 07-cv-01732-ZLW.

April 3, 2008


ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO REINSTATE CASE


Mr. Hampton currently is in the custody of the Colorado Department of Corrections and currently is incarcerated at the Four Mile Correctional Complex in Cañon City, Colorado. The matter before the Court is the Letter that Plaintiff, a pro se litigant, filed on February 15, 2008, in the instant 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Order of Dismissal that was entered on October 25, 2007, and reinstatement of the case.

This action was dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Upon review of Mr. Hampton's Letter, the Court finds that his parole revocation claims are not subject to Heck and that the Complaint and action should be reinstated with respect to the parole claims.

The Court finds, however, that Mr. Hampton has failed to comply with the Court's August 17, 2008, Order instructing him to make monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding month's income credited to his trust fund account statement or show cause each month why he has no assets and no means by which to make monthly payments. Plaintiff is reminded that he is obligated to pay the filing fee pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915b)(1) regardless of the outcome of the action. Plaintiff made an initial partial filing fee payment on October 2, 2007. No further payments have been made. Plaintiff will be instructed to respond and show cause why the instant action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the August 17, 2008, Order.

As for Plaintiff's request that the Court address the additional claims that he raises in the February 15, 2008, Letter, Plaintiff will be directed to file an Amended Complaint once he shows cause why the instant action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court's August 17, 2008, Order. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Plaintiff's Letter, filed on February 15, 2008, is construed as a request to reinstate the instant action and is granted. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Order of Dismissal and the Judgment, both filed on October 25, 2007, are vacated. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to reinstate this action. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff file a Response, within thirty days from the date of this Order, and show cause why the instant action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the August 17, 2008, Order.


Summaries of

Hampton v. Ortiz

United States District Court, D. Colorado
Apr 3, 2008
Civil Action No. 07-cv-01732-ZLW (D. Colo. Apr. 3, 2008)
Case details for

Hampton v. Ortiz

Case Details

Full title:NATHANIEL HAMPTON, Plaintiff, v. JOE ORTIZ, Exec. Dir. of DOC, PAROLE…

Court:United States District Court, D. Colorado

Date published: Apr 3, 2008

Citations

Civil Action No. 07-cv-01732-ZLW (D. Colo. Apr. 3, 2008)