Washington v. Harper

Filing 6

ORDER DISMISSING CASE without prejudice for failure to prosecute this action. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 11/6/2017. (tjk)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS JACOB WASHINGTON, Petitioner, vs. –690-DRH JOE HARPER Defendants. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Petitioner Jacob Washington, a resident at Chester Mental Health Center, filed the instant action on June 30, 2017. (Doc. 1). On July 17, 2017, Petitioner filed an Amended Petition. (Doc. 3). The action was opened as a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. However, after reviewing the Amended Petition, the Court could not determine the nature of Washington’s claims and the relief being sought. 1 Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Amended Petition without prejudice and ordered as follows: IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Washington is GRANTED leave to file an amended pleading on or before October 25, 2017. The ultimate filing fee due will be based on the nature of the action filed. Failure to file an amended pleading will result in this action being dismissed without prejudice. Washington is free to file multiple actions if, for example he wants to file both a civil rights action and a habeas corpus petition—but each would be a separate case and separate filing fees would be assessed. 1 The Court could not discern whether Washington intended to file a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, or some combination thereof. 1 (Doc. 5). To enable Washington to comply with this Order, the Clerk provided him with blank § 1983, § 2254, and § 2241 form pleadings (and corresponding instruction booklets). The deadline has passed. Washington has not filed a response to the Court’s order. In fact, he has not communicated with the Court at all. As a result, the Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The obligation to pay the filing fee was incurred on the date Washington filed this action. As this action was originally docketed as a Habeas Petition and Washington has not responded to the Court’s Order, the Court will impose the filing fee associated with habeas actions, $5.00. Washington did not file an IFP Motion. However, he did file a trust fund account statement indicating that he is indigent. (Doc. 4). The Court treats this pleading as a motion to proceed IFP and grants the motion based on the financial 2 information provided. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case and enter judgment accordingly. IT IS SO ORDERED. Digitally signed by Judge David R. Herndon Date: 2017.11.06 09:58:48 -06'00' United States 3

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?