JACKSON v. PALMER et al
ORDER dismissing Complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE TILMAN E SELF, III on 1/7/2021. (chc)
Case 5:20-cv-00372-TES-CHW Document 8 Filed 01/07/21 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
CIVIL ACTION NO.
JUDGE KATHY S. PALMER, et al.,
Petitioner Jimmy Jackson, a prisoner in Dooly State Prison in Unadilla, Georgia,
filed a handwritten document challenging the validity of his conviction, which the
Clerk docketed in this case as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. [Doc. 1]. Petitioner
did not, however, use the required 28 U.S.C. § 2254 form. [Id.]. Additionally, Petitioner
did not pay the $5.00 filing fee or petition the Court to allow him to proceed in forma
pauperis in this action.
Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge ordered Petitioner to complete and return a §
2254 form and either pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit an affidavit for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis along with a certified copy of his trust fund account statement for the
last six months. [Doc. 3]. The Magistrate Judge gave Petitioner 21 days to complete and
file the required form and either pay the filing fee or move for leave to proceed in forma
Case 5:20-cv-00372-TES-CHW Document 8 Filed 01/07/21 Page 2 of 3
pauperis. [Id.]. The Magistrate Judge also cautioned Petitioner that his failure to fully and
timely comply could result in the dismissal of this action. [Id.].
Thereafter, Petitioner did not file a petition on the proper form, pay the filing fee,
or move for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Although Petitioner did file three letters
with the Court, they all appeared to relate to conditions in the prison and Petitioner’s
medical needs, rather than to this case. [Doc. 4]; [Doc. 5]; [Doc. 6]. Thus, because
Petitioner had not filed a recast habeas corpus petition, paid the filing fee, moved for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, or otherwise responded to the order directing him to
take these actions, the Magistrate Judge ordered Petitioner to show cause why this
petition should not be dismissed based on Petitioner’s failure to comply with the
previous order. The Magistrate Judge gave Petitioner 21 days to respond and cautioned
him that his failure to do so would result in the Court dismissing this case.
More than 21 days have passed since the Magistrate Judge entered the show
cause order, and Petitioner has not responded to that order. Thus, because Petitioner
has failed to comply with the previous orders or to otherwise prosecute his case, the
Court now DISMISSES the petition WITHOUT PREJUDICE. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b);
Brown v Tallahassee Police Dep’t, 205 F. App’x 802, 802 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (“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)).
Case 5:20-cv-00372-TES-CHW Document 8 Filed 01/07/21 Page 3 of 3
SO ORDERED, this 7th day of January, 2021.
S/Tilman E. Self, III
TILMAN E. SELF, III, 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?