Filing 7

ORDER dismissing 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by KEVIS VAN NESS. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE CLAY D. LAND on 5/8/2024 (tlf).

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA COLUMBUS DIVISION KEVIS VAN NESS, : : Petitioner, : : VS. : : Sheriff GREGORY COUNTRYMAN, : : Respondent. : ________________________________ : NO. 4:24-CV-00031-CDL-MSH DISMISSAL ORDER Pro se Petitioner Kevis Van Ness, a pretrial detainee at the Muscogee County Jail in Columbus Georgia, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. ECF No. 1. Petitioner also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 4. On March 27, 2024, Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis was denied and he was ordered to pay the $5.00 filing fee. ECF No. 5. Petitioner was given fourteen (14) days to pay the fee. Id. Petitioner did not respond. Therefore, on April 17, 2024, the Court notified Petitioner that it had not received a response and ordered him to show cause why his action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with this Court’s orders. ECF No. 6. The Court unambiguously informed Petitioner that his action would be dismissed if he failed to respond. Id. Petitioner was given fourteen (14) days to respond or otherwise pay the fee. Id. Petitioner has once again failed to respond. Because Petitioner has failed to comply with the Court’s orders or otherwise prosecute his case, his complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Brown v. Tallahassee Police Dep’t, 205 F. App’x 802, 802 (11th Cir. 2006) (“The court may dismiss an action sua sponte under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute or failure to obey a court order.”) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and Lopez v. Aransas Cty. Indep. Sch. Dist., 570 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1978)). SO ORDERED, this 8th day of May, 2024. S/Clay D. Land CLAY D. LAND, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 2

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?