Spencer v. Sheldon
ORDER dismissing case for failure to comply with the May 8, 2013 Court order and dismissing plaintiff's claims without prejudice under Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) for failure to prosecute. The 5 Motion to Stay is denied as moot. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 7/25/13. (kpr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CASE NO. 2:13CV00058 KGB/BD
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff Addones Spencer, a federal inmate previously housed in the Federal
Correctional Institution - Medium, in Forrest City, Arkansas, filed this complaint pro se (Dkt.
No. 1). In his complaint, Mr. Spencer casts his claim as a habeas corpus petition, but his
allegations all relate to his conditions of confinement. Thus, this civil action is properly viewed
as a Bivens action.
See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
On May 8, 2013, Mr. Spencer was ordered either to pay the filing fee or file an
application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 2). He was warned that failing to comply
with the Court order could result in the dismissal of his lawsuit.
Mr. Spencer has not paid the filing fee, and he has not submitted a complete application
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis within the time allowed. He has instead moved to stay
this lawsuit based on his transfer to the United States Penitentiary in Beaumont, Texas (Dkt. No.
5). The motion to stay, however, is not properly before the Court because Mr. Spencer has not
addressed the filing fee issue, as he was ordered to do.
Because Mr. Spencer failed to comply with the May 8, 2013 Court order, his claims are
dismissed, without prejudice, under Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), for failure to prosecute. His motion to
stay is denied as moot (Dkt. No. 5).
SO ORDERED this the 25th day of July, 2013.
Kristine G. Baker
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?