Taylor v. Harry

Filing 5

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by District Judge David M. Lawson. (SPin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DWAYNE TAYLOR,
Petitioner,

Case Number 16-14478
Honorable David M. Lawson

v.
SHIRLEE HARRY,
Respondent.
______________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
On December 21, 2016, petitioner Dwayne Taylor, presently confined at the Earnest C.
Brooks Correctional Facility in Muskegon Heights, Michigan, filed a petition for writ of habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On December 28, 2016, the Court ordered the petitioner to submit
the $5.00 filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis within twenty one days. The
petitioner has failed to submit either the filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis,
and the time for doing so now has passed.
Where a petitioner who seeks habeas corpus relief does not comply with a district court’s
directions in a deficiency order and fails either to pay the filing fee or to provide the required
documentation to support an application to proceed in forma pauperis, the district court must
presume that the prisoner is not a pauper, assess the full filing fee, and dismiss the case for want of
prosecution. Gravitt v. Tyszkiewicz, 14 F. App’x 348, 349 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing McGore v.
Wrigglesworth, 114 F. 3d 601, 605 (6th Cir. 1997)). The deficiency order clearly stated that the
petitioner was required to submit either the $5.00 filing fee or an application to proceed in forma
pauperis and warned the petitioner that failure to comply with the order could result in the dismissal
of his petition. Because the petitioner failed to pay the filing fee or submit the required application

to proceed in forma pauperis, his petition is subject to dismissal for want of prosecution.
After the Court issued the notice of deficiency for failure to pay the required filing fee, the
petitioner responded with a request to stay the proceedings on his petition, in which he contends that
the demand for a filing fee by the Court is an attempt to “extort money” from him. The petitioner’s
request for a stay does not, however, identify any legal authority that would allow him to proceed
with the present petition without either paying the required fee or obtaining leave to proceed in
forma pauperis. He also does not indicate when he intends to pay the fee, or that he intends to do
so at all. And he has not identified any legal authority that would permit the Court to “stay”
proceedings on a petition where those proceedings are not in the first instance authorized to proceed.
The Court therefore will dismiss the petition without prejudice.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the petition is DISMISSED without prejudice.
It is further ORDERED that the petitioner’s request to stay proceedings [dkt. #4] is
DENIED as moot.
s/David M. Lawson
DAVID M. LAWSON
United States District Judge
Dated: January 30, 2017
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 January 30, 2017.
s/Susan Pinkowski
SUSAN PINKOWSKI

-2-