Opinion
CIV-20-1259-JD
12-10-2021
QUENTIN NICHOLS, Petitioner, v. FNU COTTEN, Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AMANDA MAXFIELD GREEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Petitioner, a pro se state prisoner, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Docs. 1, 6, 8). United States District Judge Jodi W. Dishman referred this matter to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C). (Doc. 3). Based on Petitioner's failure to comply with the court's order, the undersigned recommends that Petitioner's objection (Doc. 10) be overruled and his Petition be dismissed without prejudice to the re-filing.
I. Procedural Background
The undersigned first found that Petitioner failed to either pay a filing fee or submit a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP, ” without prepayment of fees). (Doc. 5). “Accordingly, the Court order[ed] Petitioner to cure the deficiencies . . . on or before January 25, 2021.” (Id.) After filing an Amended Petition, Petitioner paid the required $5.00 filing fee. (Docs. 6, 7; see 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a)). Petitioner then filed a third Petition. (Doc. 8).
Upon review, the court found that none of the three petitions, on their own or read together, were submitted on the proper form, nor did they supply the court with the equivalent information required by the form. (Doc. 9). Thus, the court entered another order directing the Petitioner to cure these remaining deficiencies no later than March 15, 2021. (Doc. 9, at 2). In this order, the court advised Petitioner that “[f]ailure to comply with [the] Order [to cure] may result in the dismissal of this action.” (Id.) The Clerk of Court mailed Petitioner the order with the necessary forms to comply. (Id.) Rather than comply, Petitioner filed an objection to the court's second Order to Cure. (Doc. 10).
II. Discussion
When a magistrate judge's order is timely objected to, the district judge must consider the objection and “modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed.R.Civ.P 72(a).1. Petitioner timely objected (Doc. 10) to this court's second Order to Cure (Doc. 9). In his objection, Petitioner asserts that “[p]risoners do not have to use the forms this Court order direct Prisoner to use, ” and that “[t]he forms order required are inadequate and can not be used to address the issues of this case.” (Id.) Petitioner then demands that “this Court [ ] either Proceed to hearing on the Pleadings and Forms already filed in this Case directing them to Produce to Petitioner before this Court without delay.” (Id.)
The order was issued on February 22, 2021, and Plaintiff's certificate of service states that his objection was mailed March 5, 2021.
However, the undersigned appropriately ordered Petitioner to cure his filing by providing the information needed to screen his Petition - giving Petitioner multiple chances to provide the requisite information. (Docs. 5, 9). Without this information, the court cannot move forward with addressing Petitioner's Petition. Thus, for the reasons set forth below, and despite Petitioner's objection, the court's second Order to Cure is proper and need not be set aside or modified.
While Petitioner opines at length about the State's lack of jurisdiction to arrest him, “try him, ” incarcerate him, or continue his incarceration, he refuses to provide any facts to support these claims. Petitioner neglects to provide any of his own court documents or state case particulars - to include anything but a vague reference to the location of the crime and his Indian status. (See Doc. 6, at 1-2) (adding, in his response to the court's first Order to Cure, only that he “IS a member of an American Indian Tribe, ” and his assertion that the alleged criminal acts took place “ON Cherokee Indian Tribal Reservation land”). Thus, while Petitioner asserts that “the United States Supreme Court has ruled on 7/9/2020 that petitioner is being held in custody by an invalid State Court, ” he provides no documentation or facts that would allow this court to grant him habeas relief. (Doc. 1, at 1).
In Petitioner's many filings, he provides little more than a random assortment of legal authority. (See Docs. 1, 6, 8, 10-13). For example, Petitioner attaches as exhibits copies of quotes from United States Supreme Court decisions, federal district court decisions (Doc. 12, at Ex. 1), Oklahoma and California State Supreme Court decisions (id. at Exs. 3, 8), Oklahoma Criminal Court of Appeals decisions (id. at Ex. 6), the Oklahoma Constitution, and clippings from unknown books and articles (Doc. 1, at Ex. 1; Doc. 12, at Exs. 2, 7) - none of which provide the court with relevant facts pertaining specifically to Petitioner's case. The exhibits merely amount to naked legal conclusions meant to support Petitioner's general allegations that the “Okla[homa] State Courts, police, Judges HAVE no Jurisdiction” on Indian land. (Doc. 1, at 2).
In fact, Petitioner makes it difficult to even ascertain which claim he brings before this court, saying,
[j]urisdiction is under 28 U.S.C.)(2241 BECAUSE the United States Supreme Court has ruled on 7/9/20 that petitioner i[s] being held in custody by an invalid State Court order from a State Court that the United States Supreme Court AND Congress has held had no jurisdiction to issue. THEREFORE, 2254 requires custody by a lawful Court and order leaving 2241 as proper or 28 U.S.C.)(1651 . . . .(Doc. 1, at 1). But, in the same Petition, he also complains about his
life threatening incarceration (CORONA infected facility, infected by prison and jail guards, WITH no proper medical housing AFTER U.S. Government gave the State $90 million dollars to build one, AND they spent only $6 million, and the other $84 million ‘disappeared'), AND lack of proper medical care, treatment/staff in Okla. State prisons AND Jails HAS resulted in hundreds of unnecessary deaths in the last 3 years alone . . . .(Id. at 2-3). Indeed, Petitioner warns the court early in his first Petition that this case touches on “[m]any issues including Americans with Disabilities Act, Religious Freedom/Restoration Act, 1983 Civil Rights Act, International Law and Treaties between Indian Tribes AND the Geneva Convention and United Nations Rules, ” which the Petitioner does not “address[ ] in this petition EXCEPT to say they fully support GRANTING relief.” (Id. at 1).
After filing his objection, Petitioner then proceeded to file an “Amicus Curiae Brief” (Doc. 11), a “Petition to Grant Habeas Corpus & Appoint Counsel for Petitioner” (Doc. 12), a “Motion for Injunctive Order BARING State Employees from Prosecution Involvement” (Doc. 13), and a “Petition For Enforcement of U.S. Supreme Court Decisions and Federal Rights” (Doc. 14). These filings remain non-responsive to the court's Order to Cure and request relief that cannot be granted absent Petitioner curing the Petition. Petitioner fails to provide any of the requested forms or information; thus, this court cannot properly screen his Petition - nor could the State, if directed, appropriately respond.
These additional filings mimic much of Plaintiff's previous petitions, both in substance and form. Thus, analysis of these filings is included above.
In light of the court's right and responsibility to manage its cases, the undersigned finds that Petitioner's failure to comply with the court's Orders to Cure warrants dismissal of this action without prejudice. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), a court may dismiss an action if the petitioner “fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); see also Huggins v. Supreme Court of the U.S., 480 Fed.Appx. 915, 916-17 (10th Cir. 2012) (noting that Rule 41(b) has been “consistently interpreted … to permit courts to dismiss actions sua sponte for a plaintiff's failure to prosecute”) (internal quotation marks omitted); AdvantEdge Bus. Grp. v. Thomas E. Mestmaker & Assocs., Inc., 552 F.3d 1233, 1236 (10th Cir. 2009) (“A district court undoubtedly has discretion to sanction a party for failing to prosecute or defend a case, or for failing to comply with local or federal procedural rules.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). And, if dismissal is without prejudice, the court may dismiss “without attention to any particular procedures.” AdvantEdge Bus. Grp., 552 F.3d at 1236; see also Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents at Arapahoe County Justice Center, 492 F.3d 1158, 1161 n.2, 1162 (10th Cir. 2007) (sua sponte dismissal for failure to comply with court's orders permitted under federal rules, and court need not follow any particular procedures in dismissing actions without prejudice for failure to comply).
Petitioner's failure to comply with the court's Order to Cure leaves the court unable “to achieve [an] orderly and expeditious disposition” of this action. Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962) (discussing the “inherent power” of a court to dismiss suits for lack of prosecution on its own initiative). As outlined above, the court has provided Petitioner sufficient notice of the possibility of dismissal for failure to cure deficiencies. Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that the Court dismiss Petitioner's habeas Petition for failure to comply with the court's order.
Recommendation and Notice of Right to Object
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends that Petitioner's objection (Doc. 10) be overruled and this action be dismissed without prejudice for Petitioner's failure to comply with the court's orders. The undersigned further recommends that Petitioner's remaining motions (Docs. 12, 13, 14) be denied as moot. Petitioner is advised of his right to file an objection to this Report and Recommendation with the Clerk of this Court by January 3, 2022, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). Failure to make timely objection to this Report and Recommendation waives his right to appellate review of both factual and legal issues contained herein. See Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991).
This Report and Recommendation disposes of all issues and terminates the referral to the undersigned Magistrate Judge unless and until the matter is re-referred.
ENTERED this 10th day of December, 2021.