* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and coll ateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

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

### JUN 7 2000 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT ENRIQUEZ GODINES, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. J. OLIVER, R. T. FIELDER, D. D. LEWSADER, T. L. QUINTANA, W. C. SHORT, S. TUBACH and R. E. HOLT, Federal Bureau of Prisons Employees, Defendants-Appellees. No. 00-1093 (District of Colorado) (D.C. No. 00-Z-98)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before BRORBY , KELLY, and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). T he case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.1 Because the district court dismissed both Godines c omplaint and the entire

action, this court has appellate jurisdiction despi te the fact that the dismissal was without prejudice. See Petty v. Manpower, Inc. , 591 F.2d 615, 617 (10th Cir. 1979). -2- Robert E. Godines, a prisoner appearing pro se , appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights comp laint without prejudice. This court exercises jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirms

. 1 Upon the filing of Godines’ civil rights complaint, the district court entered an order directing Godines to cure certain deficien cies. In particular, the district court ordered Godines to either pay the filing fee in full or to file a proper 28 U.S.C. § 1915 motion and affidavit. That order specifically listed each of the required elements of a proper § 1915 motion. When Godines ultimately filed a § 1915 motion, that motion was legally insufficient i n the following two particulars: (1) it was not certified by a prison official; and (2) it did not cover the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of the moti on. In response to the inadequate motion, the district court dismissed God ines’ complaint and the entire action without prejudice. In so doing, the distric t court specifically noted that it had apprised Godines of each of the necessary eleme nts of a proper § 1915 motion. On appeal, Godines asserts that he is excused from complying with § 1915 certification requirements because there is no formthat contains a spot for the-3-

signature of the prison official and that his trustaccount statement sufficiently covered the requisite time period. We find both co ntentions without merit for the reasons stated in the district court’s order of dis missal dated February 24, 2000 and order denying motion to reconsider dated March 15, 2000. This court is frankly mystified by Godines’ insistence on filing a frivolous appeal rather than refiling his civil rights complaint with an appropr iately supported § 1915 motion, pursuant to the explicit directions of the districtcourt. This appeal is hereby DISMISSED as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). This dismissal counts as a strike p ursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We remind Godines of his continuing obligation to p ay all installments of the deferred appellate filing fee until the fee is paidin full. No exception is made for dismissed appeals. See 28 U.S.C. S 1915(b)(2). ENTERED FOR THE COURT:

Michael R. Murphy Circuit Judge