Rice v. U.S.

Full title: LAMONTE RUSSELL RICE, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

Date published: Jun 21, 2006

Civil No. 2:06-CV-11948 (E.D. Mich. Jun. 21, 2006)

Opinion

Civil No. 2:06-CV-11948.

June 21, 2006

OPINION AND ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL

BERNARD FRIEDMAN, District Judge

Lamonte Russell Rice, ("Petitioner"), presently residing in Port Huron, Michigan, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On May 8, 2006, Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen signed an "Order to Correct Deficiency," in which petitioner was ordered to submit a $5.00 fee for filing a habeas corpus petition or an application to proceed in forma pauperis within twenty one days of the order. For the reasons stated below, Petitioner's action is dismissed without prejudice because of petitioner's failure to comply with an order of the court.

I. Discussion

Petitioner's application is subject to dismissal, because he failed to comply with the order of deficiency by either submitting the $5.00 filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis.

If a prisoner who seeks habeas corpus relief does not comply with a district court's directions in a deficiency order, regarding the prisoner's failure to pay the full filing fee and his failure to provide the required documentation to apply to proceed in forma pauperis, the district court must presume that the prisoner is not a pauper, assess the full filing fee, and dismiss the case for want of prosecution. See Gravitt v. Tyszkiewicz, 14 Fed. Appx. 348, 349 (6^th Cir. 2001) (citing McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F. 3d 601, 605 (6^th Cir. 1997)). The deficiency order clearly stated that petitioner was required to submit either the $5.00 filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The deficiency order also expressly warned petitioner that failure to comply with the order could result in the dismissal of his action. Because petitioner failed to pay the filing fee or submit the required application to proceed in forma pauperis, his petition is subject to dismissal for want of prosecution. Gravitt, 14 Fed. Appx. at 349; See also Bischoff v. Genesis House, 2006 WL 752755, * 1 (E.D. Mich. March 21, 2006).

II. ORDER

Based upon the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.