Samuels v. Hassel et al

Filing 38

ORDER DISMISSING CASE for failure to prosecute, in addition to the reasons set forth in the Court's prior Ruling on petitioner's habeas petition [Dkt. 37], for the reasons stated in the attached Order. The Clerk is directed to close this file. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 4/3/2017. (Hudson, C)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

RALSTON ENRICO SAMUELS,
Petitioner,
v.
SCOTT HASSEL and
SCOTT SATTERFIELD,
Respondents.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

PRISONER
CASE NO. 3:13-cv-1189 (VLB)

April 3, 2017

ORDER DISMISSING CASE
The petitioner, Ralston Enrico Samuels, currently residing in Jamaica,
brought this action pro se for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2254 (2000). He challenged his conviction for sexual assault and risk of injury to
a minor on the ground that he was afforded ineffective assistance of counsel. On
March 20, 2017, the Court dismissed Samuels’ habeas petition for the reasons set
forth in the Ruling on Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. [Dkt. 37.] The
Court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability. Id. at 14.
In addition to the reasons set forth in the Court’s Ruling on Amended
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the Court dismisses petitioner’s habeas
corpus petition for failure to prosecute. The petitioner has stated he is not
receiving mail sent to him by the Court. Mail sent to the petitioner by the Court
has not been returned to the Court as undeliverable. Mail which has been sent
and not returned is presumed to have been delivered. Claude v. Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A., 3:13-cv-00535, 2015 WL 5797007, *10 (D. Conn. Sept. 30, 2015) (“a

letter shown to be properly addressed and mailed raises a rebuttable
presumption of receipt”). If the petitioner seeks to reopen the case, he is advised
to submit an application for electronic filing. Should petitioner choose not to
participate in electronic filing, the Court will construe his refusal to participate in
electronic filing as his acceptance of the risk that he will not receive case material
mailed by the opposing party and the Court.
The amended petition for writ of habeas corpus [Dkt. 25] is DENIED for
failure to prosecute in addition to the reasons set forth in the Court’s prior Ruling
[Dkt. 37].
The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of the respondent and
close this case.
SO ORDERED this 3rd day of April 2017, at Hartford, Connecticut.

/s/
Vanessa L. Bryant
United States District Judge

2