BONILLA-GARCIA v. CONLEY et al
ORDER DISMISSING without prejudice Plaintiff's petition. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 4/12/2018. (tlh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
Warden TJ CONLEY, et al.,
Petitioner Bryan Bonilla-Garcia, currently confined at Washington State Prison, has
filed an application for federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging
his November 21, 2017, placement in administrative segregation. See Pet., ECF No. 1.
Petitioner also filed a motion to proceed in this action without prepayment of the Court’s
filing fees, but Petitioner failed to sign the motion and failed to submit a certification
showing the balance of his inmate trust account as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Rule
3 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. See Mot. for
Leave, ECF No. 2. Consequently, on February 2, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued an
Order affording Petitioner twenty-one days in which to submit a properly completed
motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) or pay the $5.00 filing fee applicable to habeas
actions. See Order, ECF No. 5. 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 IFP 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. 6.
The Show Cause Order again advised Petitioner that failure to timely comply would result
in the dismissal of this action.
Id. at 2.
That order was returned to the Court as
undeliverable in an envelope marked “Not IN [illegible]” and “ATTEMPTED NOT
KNOWN/UNABLE TO FORWARD.” Mail Returned 1, ECF No. 7.
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.
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 12th day of April, 2018.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
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?