Opinion
Case Number 2:14-cv-11478
05-20-2014
MARTIN LEWIS, Petitioner, v. JOE BARRETT, Respondent.
Honorable George Caram Steeh
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS AND DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
The Court has before it Martin Lewis's pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is a prisoner currently confined at the Cooper Street Correctional Facility where he is serving a controlling sentence of eighteen months-to-seven years s for his convictions of false statement to procure a financial transaction device, use of a computer to commit a crime, and identity theft. Petitioner did not pay the required filing fee when he filed his petition, nor did he submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); 28 U.S.C. § 1915; Rule 3 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. The Court, therefore, issued an Order to Correct Deficiency on April 17, 2014, requiring Petitioner to either pay the filing fee or submit a properly completed in forma pauperis application. The order provided that if Petitioner did not submit the fee or requested information by May 8, 2014, his case would be dismissed.
The time for submitting the filing fee or required information has elapsed and Petitioner has failed to correct the deficiency. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner may submit a new habeas petition with payment of the filing fee or an in forma pauperis application. The Court makes no determination as to the merits of Petitioner's claims.
Before Petitioner may appeal this decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(a); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A certificate of appealability may issue "only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When a federal court denies a habeas claim on procedural grounds without addressing the merits, a certificate of appealability should issue if it is shown that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petitioner states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). Reasonable jurists could not debate the correctness of the Court's procedural ruling. Accordingly, the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
May 20, 2014, by electronic and/or ordinary mail and also on
Martin Lewis #232568, Cooper Street Correctional Facility,
3100 Cooper Street, Jackson, MI 49201.