GWINGUE v. WARDEN

Filing 5

ORDER DISMISSING this action without prejudice. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 4/30/2018. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION

CHEIKH HOWARD GWINGUE,

:
:
Petitioner,
:
:
v.
:
:
WARDEN,
:
:
:
Respondent.
:
__________________________________

No. 5:18-cv-00001-MTT-CHW

ORDER
Petitioner Cheikh Howard Gwingue, currently confined at Valdosta State Prison,
has filed an application for federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254,
challenging his October 21, 2016, judgment of conviction in the Superior Court of Houston
County, Georgia. See Pet., ECF No. 1.

Petitioner failed to pay the $5.00 filing fee

applicable to habeas actions and did not otherwise seek to proceed without prepayment of
that filing fee. Accordingly, On March 2, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued an order
affording Plaintiff twenty-one days in which to either pay the fee or submit a properly
completed motion to proceed in forma pauperis. See Order, ECF No. 3. That Order
advised Petitioner that failure to timely and fully comply could result in the dismissal of
his Petition and directed the Clerk of Court to provide Petitioner with a copy of the Court’s
standard in forma pauperis application and forms. Id. at 2.

When the deadline for compliance passed without response from Petitioner, the
Magistrate Judge ordered Petitioner to show cause why this action should not be dismissed
due to Petitioner’s failure to comply. See Order to Respond and Show Cause, ECF No. 4.
The Show Cause Order again advised Petitioner that failure to timely comply would result
in the dismissal of this action. Id. at 2. As of today’s date, the twenty-one (21) day
deadline to show cause has passed without response from Petitioner, and Petitioner has not
had contact with this Court since he initially filed his Petition. In that time, Petitioner has
failed to respond to multiple Orders of the Court. It, therefore, appears that Petitioner no
longer wishes to pursue this action at this time.1 For these reasons, the instant action is
hereby 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 Lopez v. Aransas Cnty Indep. Sch. Dist., 570 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1978)).
SO ORDERED, this 30thday of April, 2018.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1

Review of the Court’s own records reveals that Petitioner has a second application for writ of habeas corpus
pending before this Court. See Gwingue v. Blakely, 5:18-cv-00015 (M.D. Ga.). Petitioner challenges the same
underlying conviction in both habeas actions. The instant action is, therefore, subject to dismissal as duplicative.
The Court further notes that Petitioner was recently afforded an opportunity to amend his Petition in 5:18-cv-00015.

2