Camp et al v. Hemingway et al
Filing
4
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER Summarily Dismissing the 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Signed by District Judge Gershwin A. Drain. (TMcg)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DESMOND CAMP, ET AL.,
Petitioners,
Case No. 2:20-cv-11667
v.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
JONATHAN HEMINGWAY, ET AL.,
Respondents.
___________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR
A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
I.
INTRODUCTION
Desmond Camp, Paul Walker, Gary Harris, Prince Albert-Junior Thompson,
Bernardo Vargas-Adomes, Aaseem Alam, Bryant Daugherty, Anthony Edwards,
Thomas G. Thompson (together, “Petitioners”), confined at the Federal Correctional
Institution in Milan, Michigan, filed a joint pro se application for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. On July 9, 2020, Magistrate Judge
R. Steven Whalen signed an “Order to Correct Deficiency,” in which Petitioners
were ordered to submit a $5.00 fee for filing a habeas corpus petition or an
application to proceed in forma pauperis within twenty-one days of the order. At
the time of this writing, Petitioners have neither submitted the $5.00 filing fee or an
application to proceed in forma pauperis. For the reasons that follow, Petitioner’s
petition for a writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) is dismissed without prejudice.
II.
DISCUSSION
Upon review of the present matter, the Court finds that Petitioners failed to
comply with the order of deficiency by either submitting the $5.00 filing fee or an
application to proceed in forma pauperis.
If a prisoner who seeks habeas corpus relief does not comply with a district
court’s directions in a deficiency order—including directions regarding the
prisoner’s failure to pay the full filing fee or provide the required documentation to
apply 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. See Gravitt v. Tyszkiewicz, 14 F. App’x 348, 349 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing
McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 605 (6th Cir. 1997)). Here, the deficiency
order clearly stated that Petitioners were required to submit either the $5.00 filing
fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 3. Moreover, the
deficiency order expressly warned Petitioners that their failure to comply with the
order could result in the dismissal of their action. Id. In light of Petitioners’ failure
to pay the requisite filing fee or submit the required application to proceed in forma
pauperis, the petition is subject to dismissal for want of prosecution. Gravitt, 14 F.
App’x at 349; see also Bischoff v. Genesis House, No. 06-cv-10231, 2006 WL
2
752755, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 21, 2006). Accordingly, the petition for a writ of
habeas corpus is summarily dismissed without prejudice.
III.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
(ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Nothing in this order
precludes Petitioners from submitting a new habeas petition or petitions with
payment of the filing fee or the in forma pauperis application
SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 24, 2020
/s/Gershwin A. Drain
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
United States District Judge
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
A Copy of this Order was served on Desmond Camp, No. 31249-039, Federal
Correctional Institution Milan, P.O. Box 1000, Milan, Michigan 48160 on
September 24, 2020, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
/s/ Teresa McGovern
Deputy Clerk
3
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?