Peeples v. United States Justice Department

Filing 5

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Petition & 4 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Mario Andjuan Peeples stating because Petitioner has failed to prosecute and to comply with the Court's Order dated October 14, 2009, it is recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Objections to R&R due by 12/30/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sonja F. Bivins on 12/10/09. Copies to parties on 12/11/09.(mpp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION MARIO ANDJUAN PEEPLES, Petitioner vs. UNITED STATES JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, Respondent. : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION 09-00624-WS-B

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This action, which was filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by an Alabama prison inmate, has been referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Local Rule 72.2(c)(4), and Rule 8 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases for appropriate action. Because Petitioner has failed to prosecute and to comply with the Court's Order dated October 14, 2009, it is recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Petitioner filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1), together with a handwritten letter request to proceed without prepayment of fees (Doc. 2), on September 24, 2009. On October 14, 2009, the Court ordered Petitioner to file this Court's required form for a petition for habeas relief by November 13, 2009. Petitioner was also order to file a motion to proceed without prepayment of fees, or in lieu thereof, pay the $5.00 filing fee

by November 13, 2009 (Doc. 3). Petitioner was cautioned that his

failure to comply with the Court's Order within the prescribed time would result in the dismissal of his action. docket in this action reflects that A review of the filed the

Petitioner

appropriate Court form for an action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 4); however, to date, Petitioner has not filed this Court's form for a motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of fees or paid the $5.00 filing fee. Due to Petitioner's failure to fully comply with the Court's Order and to prosecute this action, and upon consideration of the alternatives that are available to the Court, it is recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as no other lesser sanction will suffice. Link v. Wabash R. R., 370 U.S. 626, 630, 82

S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962) (interpreting Rule 41(b) not to restrict the court's inherent authority to dismiss sua sponte an action for lack of prosecution); World Thrust Films, Inc. v. International Family Entertainment, Inc., 41 F.3d 1454, 1456-57 (11th Cir. 1995); Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93 (4th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, Ballard v. Volunteers of America, 493 U.S. 1084, 110 S.Ct. 1145, 107 L.Ed.2d 1049 (1990); Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-op, 864 F.2d 101, 102 (11th Cir. 1989); Goforth v. Owens, 766 F.2d 1533, 1535 (11th Cir. 1983); Jones v. Graham, 709 F.2d 1457, 1458 (11th Cir. 1983). Accord Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S.

32, 111 S.Ct. 2123, 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991) (ruling that federal

2

courts' inherent power to manage their own proceedings authorized the imposition of attorney's fees and related expenses as a sanction); Malautea v. Suzuki Motor Co., 987 F.2d 1536, 1545-46 (11th Cir. 1993)(finding that the court's inherent power to manage actions before it permitted the imposition of fines), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 863, 114 S.Ct. 181, 126 L.Ed.2d 140 (1993). The attached sheet contains important information regarding objections to this Report and Recommendation. DONE this 10th day of December, 2009. /S/SONJA F. BIVINS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION AND FINDINGS CONCERNING NEED FOR TRANSCRIPT 1. Objection. Any party who objects to this recommendation or anything in it must, within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this document, file specific written objections with the clerk of court. Failure to do so will bar a de novo determination by the district judge of anything in the recommendation and will bar an attack, on appeal, of the factual findings of the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736, 738 (11th Cir. 1988). The procedure for challenging the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge is set out in more detail in SD ALA LR 72.4 (June 1, 1997), which provides, in part, that: A party may object to a recommendation entered by a magistrate judge in a dispositive matter, that is, a matter excepted by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), by filing a "Statement of Objection to Magistrate Judge's Recommendation"...... The statement of objection shall specify those portions of the recommendation to which objection is made and the basis for the objection. The objecting party shall submit to the district judge, at the time of filing the objection, a brief setting forth the party's arguments that the magistrate judge's recommendation should be reviewed de novo and a different disposition made. It is insufficient to submit only a copy of the original brief submitted to the magistrate judge, although a copy of the original brief may be submitted or referred to and incorporated into the brief in support of the objection. Failure to submit a brief in support of the objection may be deemed an abandonment of the objection. A magistrate judge's recommendation cannot be appealed to a Court of Appeals; only the district judge's order or judgment can be appealed. Any opposing 2. Opposing party's response to the objection. party may submit a brief opposing the objection within fourteen (14) days of being served with a copy of the statement of objection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.

4

3. Transcript (applicable where proceedings tape recorded). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the magistrate judge finds that the tapes and original records in this action are adequate for purposes of review. Any party planning to object to this recommendation, but unable to pay the fee for a transcript, is advised that a judicial determination that transcription is necessary is required before the United States will pay the cost of the transcript. /s/ Sonja F. Bivins UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5