Cook v. Cassady

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. An Order of Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 8/19/2013. (JMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
RAYMOND J. COOK,
Petitioner,
v.
JAY CASSADY,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:13CV1137 TIA

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on petitioner’s refusal to comply with the
Court’s orders. Petitioner filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254 in the Western District of Missouri. The Western District transferred
the action to this Court because petitioner’s conviction arose within this District.
Upon receipt of the petition, the Court reviewed it pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules
Governing Habeas Cases and found that it did not comply with Rule 2 of the Rules
Governing Habeas Cases or Rule 8(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. As a result,
the Court ordered petitioner to submit an amended petition that complied with the
Rules.
Petitioner responds that he will not comply with the Court’s orders because he
does not want his petition decided in this District and because he believes his petition
is sufficient.

Rule 41(b) permits the Court to dismiss an action where the filing party refuses
to follow the Court’s orders. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Habeas Cases requires
that the Court conduct a sua sponte review of habeas petitions and to dismiss them
if it appears that petitioner is not entitled to relief. Rule 2(d) of the Rules Governing
Habeas Cases requires that a petition must substantially follow the form distributed
by the Court. “A [petition] which fails to comply with Rule 8 may be dismissed with
prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) after allowing time to file an amended
complaint.” Mangan v. Weinberger, 848 F.2d 909, 911 (8th Cir. 1988).
The Court will dismiss this action because the petition does not comply with
the applicable rules and because petitioner has refused to comply with the Court’s
orders.
As a result,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without
prejudice.
An Order of Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 19th day of August, 2013.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-2-