Opinion
C/A 5:24-2313-SAL-KDW
06-21-2024
Kaiwah Shawn Wallace, Petitioner, v. State of South Carolina, Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Kaymani D. West United States Magistrate Judge
Kaiwah Shawn Wallace (“Petitioner”) proceeding pro se, filed this Petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 while incarcerated at Beaufort County Detention Center. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c) (D.S.C.), the undersigned is authorized to review such petitions for relief and submit findings and recommendations to the district judge. For the reasons that follow, the undersigned recommends the district judge dismiss the Petition in this case without prejudice.
Petitioner filed the instant Petition and stated he is being held on “Mental Health,” ECF No. 1. Petitioner's Petition, however, did not provide any other information about his detention, nor did he allege sufficient facts to show why he believed his detention was unconstitutional, or clearly explain the type of relief he was seeking. Id. On May 1, 2024, the court issued an order directing Petitioner to pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis and to provide a statement explaining why he believed his “mental health” detention was unlawful. ECF No. 8. Petitioner was warned that the failure to comply with the court's order may subject the case to dismissal. Id. Petitioner partially complied with the court's order; however, Petitioner failed to provide the court with the requested additional information to support his claims. Id.
On May 17, 2024, the court issued a second order directing Petitioner to fully respond to the court's proper form order and to provide the court with a statement explaining why his detention was unlawful. ECF No. 15. Petitioner was advised his statement should include: the conviction and/or detention he is challenging, the date of the conviction and/or detention, the sentence imposed or length of detention, and the court that imposed the sentence or detention. Id. at 2. Petitioner was also directed to provide a copy of any documents in his possession that supported his claims. Id. Petitioner was again warned if he failed to bring the case into proper form within the time permitted his case may be subject to dismissal. Id. In response to the court order, Petitioner submitted a paper listing dates and times, and a copy of Beaufort County Sheriff's Officer incident reports dated 2/18/21 for motor vehicle theft and 7/23/21 for burglary and breaking and entering. ECF No. 18. Petitioner, however, did not include any additional information about the pages he submitted to the court, nor did he explain the reason he was currently detained in the Beaufort County Detention Center or why his detention was unconstitutional.
It is well established that a district court has authority to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute. “The authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been considered an ‘inherent power,' governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962). In addition to its inherent authority, this court may also sua sponte dismiss a case for lack of prosecution under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). Id. at 630.
In considering whether to dismiss an action pursuant to Rule 41(b), the court should consider the following factors:
(1) the degree of personal responsibility on the part of the plaintiff;
(2) the amount of prejudice to the defendant caused by the delay;
(3) the [plaintiff's history of] proceeding in a dilatory fashion; and,
(4) the effectiveness of sanctions less drastic than dismissal.Davis v. Williams, 588 F.2d 69, 70 (4th Cir. 1978) (quoting McCargo v. Hedrick, 545 F.2d 393, 396 (4th Cir. 1976)) (internal quotation marks omitted). These four factors “‘are not a rigid fourpronged test'” and whether to dismiss depends on the particular circumstances of the case. Attkisson v. Holder, 925 F.3d 606, 625 (4th Cir. 2019) (quoting Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95 (4th Cir. 1989)). For example, in Ballard, the court noted the Magistrate Judge's explicit warning to a litigant that a failure to obey his order would result in a recommendation that the district court dismiss his case. Ballard, 882 F.2d at 95-96. The court explained this warning was an important factor supporting dismissal. Id.
The Rule 41(b) factors weigh in favor of dismissal. Petitioner is personally responsible for his failure to comply with the court's proper form orders. Further, Petitioner was specifically warned his case may be dismissed if he failed to bring his case into proper form. See ECF Nos. 8, 15. Despite having multiple opportunities to provide the court with the requested information, Petitioner has not done so. Because Petitioner has failed to provide the court with sufficient information to evaluate the claims he is attempting to bring, his petition continues to not be in proper form. Accordingly, the undersigned recommends the court dismiss the instant Petition without prejudice.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
The parties are directed to note the important information in the attached “Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation.”
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. [I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Robin L. Blume, Clerk
United States District Court
Post Office Box 2317
Florence, South Carolina 29503
Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).