* After examining appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would notmaterially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted w ithout oral argument. This Order and Judgment is not binding precedent, exceptunder the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. T he court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R . 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### AUG 2 2000 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

RICHARD L. SPRINGS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PATRICK J. SULLIVAN, JR., Sheriff; ARAPAHOE COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT, Defendants-Appellees. No. 00-1098 (D.C. No. 00-Z-93) (D. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before SEYMOUR , Chief Judge, EBEL and BRISCOE , Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff-Appellant Richard L. Springs, a prisoner in the Arapahoe County, Colorado, detention facility, filed a civil rights action in federal district court, presumably pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging t hat a prison guard had failed to protect Springs from assault by another inmate i n violation of Springs’- 2 -

constitutional rights. (See Doc. 3.) Springs alleges that while he was in segregated confinement, Springs’ door as well as th at of another inmate were improperly left open. When Springs exited his cell , he was assaulted by the other inmate, resulting in injury to Springs’ thumb. Spr ings sought $40,000 in damages. Springs also sought leave to proceed in f orma pauperis (“in forma pauperis”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (See Doc. 1.) Springs’ complaint and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis failed to comply with a number of procedural requir ements. Magistrate O. Edward Schlatter therefore ordered Springs to cure these deficiencies within thirty days. (See Doc. 2.) The order further provided that if Sprin gs failed to cure the deficiencies within that time, the action would be dismissed without prejudice. Springs filed an amended complaint within the thirty-day time period. (See Doc. 4.) The district court nonetheless dismissed Springs’ complaint without prejudice, and denied the motion to proceed in form a pauperis as moot, in light of the fact that Springs had failed to comply with the requirement that he “submit a certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint,” 18 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2), in order to qualify for in forma paup eris status.- 3 -

Springs filed a motion for leave to proceed on appe al in forma pauperis (se e Doc. 10), but the district court denied this moti on, finding that the appeal was not sought in good faith as required by § 1915( a)(3) (see Doc. 11). We deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dism iss the appeal on the ground that it is frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Springs does not contend in his brief on appeal that he did, in fact , comply with the order to cure the defects associated with his original complaint and motion for in forma pauperis status. Moreover, our review of the recor d indicates that the copy of his trust fund account statement did not comply with th e certification requirement. (See Doc. 5.) The procedural posture of this case does not permitthis court to consider the merits of Springs’ claim that his constitutiona l rights were violated. We wish to make clear to Mr. Springs that the district cour t denied his original complaint and motion for in forma pauperis status without pre judice. This means that he may refile his complaint and motion for in forma pauperis sta tus with the district court. If Springs does so, and provided he meets a ll of the procedural and jurisdictional requirements, the district court wil l then be in a position to- 4 -

consider the claim on the merits. Appeal DISMISSED.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

David M. Ebel Circuit Judge