Young v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

Filing 4

ORDER DISMISSING CASE Signed by District Judge Thomas L. Ludington. (TJac)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION TIMOTHY DOYLE YOUNG, Petitioner, v. Case Number 11-cv-12191 Honorable Thomas L. Ludington BUREAU OF PRISONS, Respondent. ________________________________________/ ORDER OF DISMISSAL Petitioner Timothy Doyle Young, presently confined at the United States Penitentiary in Florence, Colorado, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 and 2242 on May 29, 2011 [Dkt. #1]. Petitioner alleges that the Federal Bureau of Prisons is holding him in custody in violation of federal law. Petitioner did not pay the filing fee for this action when he filed his habeas corpus petition on May 19, 2011, nor did he apply for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Consequently, on May 23, 2011, the Court ordered Petitioner to submit either the $5.00 filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court warned Petitioner that failure to comply with the Court’s order within twenty-one days could result in the dismissal of this action. Petitioner has not paid the filing fee, submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis, or requested an extension of time to comply with the Court’s previous order. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus [Dkt. #1] is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of prosecution. Link v. Wabash R. R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-33 (1962); Local Rule 41.2 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 2, 1998). s/Thomas L. Ludington THOMAS L. LUDINGTON United States District Judge Dated: July 19, 2011 PROOF OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail on July 19, 2011. s/Tracy A. Jacobs TRACY A. JACOBS -2-

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?