Johnson v. Foster
ORDER DISMISSING CASE without prejudice. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 11/30/2017. (tjk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
NATHANIEL JOHNSON, #B84311,
Case No. 17-cv-931-DRH
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HERNDON, District Judge:
Proceeding pro se, Petitioner Nathaniel Johnson filed a Petition pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254 in this District on August 31, 2017. (Doc. 1). When Petitioner
responded to this Court’s Order (Doc. 3) directing him to pay his filing fee or
move to proceed in forma pauperis claiming that he already had and attaching a
receipt of his payment of the filing fee in Case No. 17-cv-909-DRH, it became
apparent that Petitioner may not have intended to file this case. See (Doc. 4). To
resolve this ambiguity, the Court directed Petitioner to notify it by November 20,
2017 as to whether he intended to file this new action or instead intended to file
an amended petition in Case No. 17-cv-909-DRH.
The Court also
ordered him to pay his filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis by
the same deadline, if he wished to proceed with his claims. Id. Petitioner was
warned that failure to respond by the deadline would result in dismissal of the
Petitioner has since filed a response to this Court’s order, asking the Court
to dismiss this case without prejudice because he filed it prematurely. (Doc. 7, p.
1). The Court will grant his request and dismiss this case without prejudice. See
FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a).
Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases in the
United States District Courts, this Court must “issue or deny a certificate of
appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” A certificate
should be issued only where the petitioner “has made a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Where a habeas petition
constitutional issue, the petitioner must show that reasonable jurists would “find
it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a
constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the
district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.
473, 478 (2000). Here, there is nothing to suggest that jurists of reason would
debate the correctness of the Court's ruling or find a valid claim of the denial of a
constitutional right, because Plaintiff requested that this case be dismissed. As
such, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without
prejudice, per Petitioner’s request. FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a). The CLERK is directed
to CLOSE this case. As Petitioner admits he intended to open this action, he will
be responsible for paying the filing fee. (Doc. 7, p. 1). His Motion for Leave to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis will be addressed in a separate order of this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Judge
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?