Opinion
Case No. 1:14-cv-936
02-17-2015
JEREMIAH WALKER, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, FRANKLIN MEDICAL CENTER, Respondent.
Dlott, J.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner, a prisoner at the Franklin Medical Center in Columbus, Ohio, initiated this action by filing an incomplete in forma pauperis application in connection with a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1). On December 11, 2014, the undersigned issued a Deficiency Order requiring petitioner to either pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit "a completed 'Certificate' page (page 8 of the application and affidavit to proceed without prepayment of fees that is used in this Court, completed and signed by the institutional cashier) showing the balance of his prisoner account, as well as an attached certified copy of his prison trust fund account statement showing at least the past six months' transactions," within thirty (30) days. (Doc. 2). Petitioner objected to the Deficiency Order. (See Doc. 4). However, on December 29, 2014, the District Court overruled petitioner's objections and ordered petitioner to comply with the December 11, 2014 Deficiency Order within thirty (30) days. (Doc. 5). In that Order (as in the Deficiency Order), petitioner was expressly advised that his failure to comply with the Court's Order "will result in dismissal of this action for want of prosecution." (Id., p. 2, at PAGEID#: 28; see also Doc. 2, p. 2, at PAGEID#: 22).
At this juncture, more than thirty (30) days after the filing of the December 29, 2014 Order requiring petitioner to comply with the December 11, 2014 Deficiency Order, petitioner has yet to pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit the requisite financial information from his institution of incarceration.
District courts have the inherent power to sua sponte dismiss civil actions for want of prosecution to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases." Link v. Wabash R.R.. 370 U.S. 626, 630-631 (1962). Failure of a party to respond to an order of the court warrants invocation of the Court's inherent power in this federal habeas corpus proceeding. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Rule 11, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.
It is therefore RECOMMENDED that this matter be DISMISSED for lack of prosecution.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. Date: 2/17/15
/s/_________
Karen L. Litkovitz
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations. This period may be extended further by the Court on timely motion for an extension. Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report objected to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the Report and Recommendation is based in whole or in part upon matters occurring on the record at an oral hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such portions of it as all parties may agree upon, or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party's objections WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). cbc