Moen v. Lancaster County Corrections

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Moen's Petition is dismissed without prejudice because he failed to comply with this court's orders. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this Memorandum and Order. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(TCL )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
ERICK MOEN,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,
v.
LANCASTER COUNTY
CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.

4:12CV3079

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on its own motion. On April 20, 2012, Plaintiff Erick
Moen (“Moen”) filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and a Motion for Leave to
Proceed in Forma Pauperis. (Filing Nos. 1 and 2.) On May 9, 2012, the court determined
that Moen’s prisoner trust account contained an average monthly balance of $100 or more
for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of the petition. (Filing No. 5.)
As such, it ordered Moen to pay the $5.00 filing fee because he has the financial ability to
do so. (Id.) The court warned Moen that failure to pay the filing fee by June 8, 2012, could
result in dismissal of his case without further notice. (Id.) The June 8, 2012, deadline has
passed and Moen has not paid the filing fee. (See Docket Sheet.) Therefore, Moen’s
claims are dismissed for failing to comply with the court’s May 9, 2012, Memorandum and
Order.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Moen’s Petition is dismissed without
prejudice because he failed to comply with this court’s orders. A separate judgment will
be entered in accordance with this Memorandum and Order.
DATED this 18 th day of June, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
United States District Judge

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S. District Court for the District of
Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their
Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The court accepts no
responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the
user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.