Langdeaux v. Lund

Filing 3

ORDER re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by James William Langdeaux, and 2 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by James William Langdeaux. The petitioner is directed to either submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis or submit the required $5.00 filing fee by no later than 9/21/12. If the petitioner does not comply with this order, this action may be dismissed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Leonard T Strand on 9/6/12. (copy w/NEF mailed to pro se petitioner) (djs)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
WESTERN DIVISION

JAMES WILLIAM LANGDEAUX,
Petitioner,

No. C12-4081-MWB

vs.
ORDER

MARK LUND,
Respondent.
____________________________

The matter before the court is the petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas
corpus. The clerk’s office filed such application on September 4, 2012. Along with his
application for a writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner submitted an application for
appointment of counsel.
The petitioner did not pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed in forma
pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (requiring $350.00 filing fee for civil actions, except
that on application for a writ of habeas corpus the filing fee is $5.00); 28 U.S.C. § 1915
(explaining in forma pauperis proceedings). The petitioner’s application for appointment
of counsel, which does not include a certificate of inmate account, does not allow the court
to determine if the petitioner is entitled to the advantages of proceeding in forma pauperis.
Therefore, the petitioner is directed to either submit an application to proceed in forma
pauperis that complies with 28 U.S.C. § 1915 or submit the required $5.00 filing fee by
no later than September 21, 2012. If he has sufficient funds in his inmate account, the
petitioner must pay the $5.00 filing fee. If the petitioner does not comply with this order,
this action may be dismissed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (permitting dismissal where a
plaintiff either fails to prosecute or fails to respond to an order of the court); Hutchins v.
A.G. Edwards & Sons, 116 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (8th Cir. 1997) (explaining court’s power

to dismiss an action); Edgington v. Missouri Dept. of Corrections, 52 F.3d 777, 779-80
(8th Cir. 1995) (same), abrogated on other grounds by Doe v. Cassel, 403 F.3d 986, 989
(8th Cir. 2005).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 6th day of September, 2012.

________________________________
LEONARD T. STRAND
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2