Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-06319/USCOURTS-ca10-16-06319-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

ROBERT E. COTNER, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CARL BEAR, Warden, et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 16-6319

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

This matter is before the court once again to address both the advance fee payment 

requirement imposed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (the “PLRA”) for civil appeals 

and the filing restrictions this court imposed on the appellant 14 years ago. 

By order entered November 2, 2016, we directed the appellant to show cause as to 

why this appeal should not be dismissed for failure to prepay the filing fees as required 

by the PLRA and directing the appellant to comply with the filing restrictions order 

entered in Cotner v. Boone, No. 01-7096, 48 F. App’x 287 (10th Cir. Sept. 13, 2002) 

(unpublished). We advised in the November 2 order that failure to respond or failure to 

file a document incomplete in any way would be grounds for dismissal for failure to 

prosecute the appeal. See 10th Cir. R. 42.1.

On November 17, 2016, the court received a document from the appellant titled 

Petition to Chief Judge for Habeas Prosecution. This document takes issue with the cases 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

November 30, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-6319 Document: 01019728906 Date Filed: 11/30/2016 Page: 1 
2

cited by this court and others as constituting “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). But the 

document in no way attempts to satisfy the filing restrictions requirements of Cotner v. 

Boone. Moreover, the underlying case being appealed was a civil rights appeal, but the 

appellant advances argument about a habeas petition. This appeal does not involve 

habeas proceedings, so his argument on that topic is not responsive to the November 2 

order.

The time for filing a compliant response to the November 2 order was November 

23, 2016. Other than the Petition to Chief Judge, the court has received nothing else from 

the appellant in this case, and the time to file compliant materials has passed. Because the 

appellant’s Petition to Chief Judge does not fully address all procedural issues raised in 

the November 2 order and we advised the appellant that failure to do would be grounds 

for dismissal, the captioned appeal is dismissed for lack of prosecution pursuant to Tenth 

Circuit Rule 42.1.

A copy of this order shall stand as and for the mandate of this court.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Lara Smith

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 16-6319 Document: 01019728906 Date Filed: 11/30/2016 Page: 2