James v. LNU
Filing
8
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL by District Judge Kea W. Riggs. The 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed by Petitioner, Kodey S. James is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to comply with rules, statutes, and the Court's Orders and for failure to prosecute. (ve)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
KODEY S. JAMES,
Petitioner,
vs.
No. 1:19-cv-00673-KWR-JHR
WARDEN ROSA,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) on the Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed by Petitioner Kodey S. James on July 22,
2019. (Doc. 1). The Court will dismiss the Petition without prejudice for failure to comply with
Court orders, statutes, and rules, and failure to prosecute.
Petitioner, Kodey S. James filed this habeas corpus case under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
challenging the decision in a prison disciplinary proceeding. (Doc. 1). Petitioner did not pay the
$5 filing fee and, instead, submitted an application to proceed without prepayment of fees or costs
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The Court conducted an analysis of the financial information,
including the inmate account statement, submitted by Petitioner under § 1915(b)(1) and
determined that Petitioner had sufficient financial resources to prepay the $5 filing fee for
commencement of the action. (Doc. 5). On March 4, 2020, the Court denied Petitioner leave to
proceed pursuant to § 1915 and ordered Petitioner to pay the full $5 filing fee within 30 days.
(Doc. 5). The Court also notified Petitioner that, if he did not pay the $5 filing fee within 30 days,
the Court could dismiss the case without further notice. (Doc. 5 at 2).
1
Petitioner did not pay the $5 filing fee or respond to the Court’s Order. On May 4, 2021,
the Court entered an Order to Show Cause. (Doc. 6). The Order directed Petitioner to show cause
why the case should not be dismissed for failure to pay the $5 filing fee. (Doc. 6 at 1). The Order
also advised Petitioner that, if he did not show cause by the deadline, the case could be dismissed
without further notice. (Doc. 6 at 2). More than 30 days elapsed after entry of the Court’s Order
to Show Cause and Petitioner has not responded to the Court’s May 4, 2021 Order or
communicated with the Court.
At the time it was filed, the Petition indicated that Petitioner was in the custody of the New
Mexico Department of Corrections at the Northwestern New Mexico Correctional Center. (Doc.
1). However, mail addressed to Petitioner at the Northwestern New Mexico Correctional Center is
being returned as undeliverable. (Doc. 7). A review of the New Mexico Corrections Department
records shows that Petitioner James is no longer in the custody of the New Mexico Department of
Corrections, and he has not provided the Court with any current address.
Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a) and 1915(a), the Court is required to collect the filing fee from
the Petitioner or authorize Petitioner to proceed without prepayment of the fee. Petitioner was
directed to pay the $5 filing fee or show cause why he should not be required to do so. (Doc. 5,
6). Petitioner has failed to pay the $5 filing fee as ordered by the Court. The local rules also require
litigants, including prisoners, to keep the Court apprised of their proper mailing address and to
maintain contact with the Court. D.N.M. LR-Civ. 83.6. Petitioner James has failed to comply
with D.N.M. LR-Civ. 83.6, failed to pay the filing fee as ordered by the Court, and failed to
communicate with the Court.
Pro se litigants are required to follow the federal rules of procedure and simple,
nonburdensome local rules. See Bradenburg v. Beaman, 632 F.2d 120, 122 (10th Cir. 1980). The
2
Court may dismiss an action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute, to comply with
statutes or rules of civil procedure, or to comply with court orders. See Olsen v. Mapes, 333 F.3d
1199, 1204, n. 3 (10th Cir. 2003).
Petitioner James has failed to comply with the Court’s orders, failed to comply with
statutory provisions, including 28 U.S.C. § 1915, failed to comply with D.N.M. LR-Civ. 83.6, and
failed to prosecute this action. The Court may dismiss this action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for
failure to prosecute, to comply with the rules of civil procedure, to comply with statutes, and to
comply with court orders. Olsen v. Mapes, 333 F.3d at 1204, n. 3. The Court will dismiss this civil
proceeding pursuant to Rule 41(b) for failure to comply with statutes, rules, and Court Orders and
failure to prosecute this proceeding.
IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
filed by Petitioner Kodey S. James (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to comply with rules, statutes, and the Court’s Orders, and for
failure to prosecute.
________________________________
KEA W. RIGGS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?