Sedlak v. Terris

Filing 4

OPINION and ORDER dismissing 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Denying a Certificate of Appealability. Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh (MBea)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

ROGER SEDLAK,
Petitioner,
v.

CASE NO. 2:14-CV-10839
HONORABLE GEORGE CARAM STEEH

J. A. TERRIS,
Respondent.
/
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS AND DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
The Court has before it federal prisoner Roger Sedlak’s pro se petition for a writ of
habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The petitioner did not pay the required
filing fee when he filed his habeas petition, nor did he submit an application to proceed in
forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); 28 U.S.C. § 1915; Rule 3 of the Rules
Governing § 2254 Cases. The Court, therefore, issued a deficiency order on February 24,
2014 requiring him to either pay the filing fee or submit a properly completed in forma
pauperis application. The order provided that if he did not do so within 21 days, his case
would be dismissed. The time for submitting the filing fee or required information has
elapsed and the petitioner has failed to correct the deficiency. Accordingly, the Court
DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Court
makes no determination as to the merits of the claims.
Before the petitioner may appeal the Court’s decision, a certificate of appealability
must issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(a); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A certificate of
appealability may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial

of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When a federal court denies relief on
procedural grounds without addressing the merits of a habeas petition, a certificate of
appealability should issue if it is shown that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether
the petitioner states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of
reason would find it debatable whether the court was correct in its procedural ruling. Slack
v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). Reasonable jurists could not debate the
correctness of the Court’s procedural ruling. Accordingly, the Court DENIES a certificate
of appealability. This case is CLOSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 1, 2014
s/George Caram Steeh
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
April 1, 2014, by electronic and/or ordinary mail and also on
Roger Sedlak #63014066, Milan Federal Correctional
Institution, Inmate Mail/Parcels, P.O. Box 1000,
Milan, MI 48160.
s/Barbara Radke
Deputy Clerk

2