Alls v. Warden, Belmont Correctional Institution

Filing 11

ORDER denying as moot and withdrawing Report and Recommendations ( ECF No. (9) in case 2:15-cv-02323-MHW-TPK, ECF No. (4)in case 2:16-cv-01001-MHW-TPK); denying as moot (1) Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis in case 2:16-cv-01001-MHW-TPK. Signed by Magistrate Judge Terence P. Kemp on 6/6/2017. Associated Cases: 2:15-cv-02323-MHW-TPK, 2:16-cv-01001-MHW-TPK (agm)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
JAMES ALLS,
Petitioner,
v.

Case No. 2:15-cv-2323

WARDEN, BELMONT CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUTION

JUDGE MICHAEL H. WATSON
Magistrate Judge Kemp

Respondent.

JAMES ALLS,
Petitioner,
v.

Case No. 2:16-cv-1001

WARDEN, BELMONT CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUTION,

JUDGE MICHAEL H. WATSON
Magistrate Judge Kemp

Respondent.
ORDER
In Case No. 2:15-cv-2323, Petitioner James Alls submitted a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254 on June 3, 2015, and moved for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. Because his application indicated that he had sufficient funds
in his account at the Belmont Correctional Institution, the Court recommended that his
application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis be denied and that, if Petitioner
wished to proceed with this petition, he be directed to submit the appropriate filing fee
($5.00).
Shortly after that recommendation was made, Petitioner withdrew his petition,

and the case was closed. Docs. 4, 5. After he pursued additional relief in state court,
Petitioner moved, on November 19, 2015, to reinstate the case. That motion was
granted on September 12, 2016, conditioned on his paying the filing fee. He has never
submitted that fee. Rather, on October 19, 2016, he filed a separate habeas corpus
action, which is now Case No. 2:16-cv-1001, and moved for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis in that case.
In a Report and Recommendation filed on May 16, 2017, the Court noted that the
petitions filed in the two separate cases were, for all material purposes, identical, and
challenged the same state court judgment. Consequently, the two cases were
consolidated for all purposes under Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(a). In that same Report and
Recommendation, it was recommended that Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis be denied and that Petitioner be directed to pay the $5.00 filing fee.
Petitioner has not objected to that recommendation, and he has paid the fee. The
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 1 in Case No. 16-cv-1001) is now
moot and is therefore denied. Further, the Report and Recommendation is also moot
and is withdrawn. The Court will conduct a screening of the petition under Rule 4 of
the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts and will
address that matter in a separate Report and Recommendation.
/s/ Terence P. Kemp
United States Magistrate Judge

2