Dorceant v. Fox

Full title: LUCKENSON DORCEANT, Petitioner v. WARDEN JACK FOX, Respondent

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Jan 17, 2018

CIVIL NO. 3:CV-17-169 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 17, 2018)

Opinion

CIVIL NO. 3:CV-17-169

01-17-2018

LUCKENSON DORCEANT, Petitioner v. WARDEN JACK FOX, Respondent

Judge Conaboy

() ORDER

Background

This pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 was filed by Luckenson Dorceant, an inmate presently confined at the Allenwood Low Federal Correctional Institution, White Deer, Pennsylvania. Petitioner's action was transferred to this Court from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Petitioner's pending action does not challenge the legality of his conviction or sentence. Rather, his Petition seeks relief with respect to a disciplinary proceeding at his prior place of confinement, the United States Penitentiary, Lompoc, California (USP-Lompoc).

An Administrative Order previously issued in this case directed Petitioner to either pay the required filing fee or submit an in forma pauperis application. When Petitioner failed to timely do so, his action was dismissed without prejudice.

Presently pending is Petitioner's motion for reconsideration. See Doc. 9. His motion asserts that he took timely steps to pay the required filing fee but due to circumstances beyond his control the payment did not timely arrive.

Since the required filing fee has been paid, the motion for reconsideration will be granted. The Clerk of Court will be directed to reopen the case and service of the petition will be ordered. An appropriate Order will enter.

AND NOW, THIS 17^th DAY OF JANUARY, 2018, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Petitioner's motion to reconsider (Doc. 9) is GRANTED.

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to REOPEN the case.

3. Since the required filing fee has been paid. Petitioner's in forma pauperis applications (Docs. 8 & 10) are DISMISSED as moot.

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a copy of the petition (Doc. 1) and this Order on Respondent and the United States Attorney.

5. Within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order, the Respondent shall respond to the allegations in the petition.

6. A determination whether Petitioner should be produced for a hearing will be held in abeyance pending submission of a response.

7. Petitioner shall, if he so desires, file a reply to the response within fourteen (14) days of its filing.

/s/_________

RICHARD P. CONABOY

United States District Judge