Adams v. State of Oklahoma et al
Filing
19
OPINION AND ORDER by District Judge James H. Payne : This action is, in all respects, DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute. Petitioner also is DENIED a certificate of appealability, because he has not shown at least, that jurists o f reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether [this] court was correct in its procedural ruling. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). See also 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). (denying dkt no. 1 4 10 )(case terminated) (acg, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
BRET LEE ADAMS,
Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF OKLAHOMA and
MUSKOGEE COUNTY SHERIFF,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CIV 15-093-JHP-KEW
OPINION AND ORDER
On March 10, 2015, petitioner filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, alleging he is pretrial detainee in the Muskogee County Jail being
denied his right to a speedy trial (Dkt. 1). On the same date, he also filed a motion to dismiss
all pending criminal cases against him in the Muskogee County District Court (Dkt. 4).
Because petitioner is not challenging the validity of a conviction or sentence, the court
construes this action as arising under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Pursuant to the court’s order, the respondent filed a response to the petition, alleging
petitioner is represented by both private and court-appointed counsel in his multiple pending
criminal cases (Dkt. 13). Petitioner has been ill during much of the calendar year of 2015,
and the Muskogee County Sheriff’s Office has refused to transport him to the state district
court with his contagious disease. Id. Therefore, the plea petitioner accepted on March 5,
2015, has not been formally entered. Id.
On October 7, 2015, the court ordered the respondent to respond to petitioner’s motion
to dismiss (Dkt. 14), and on October 19, 2015, petitioner’s copy of that order was returned,
marked “Return to Sender, Unable to Forward” (Dkt. 16). Plaintiff’s copy of the order
denying his motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 15) was returned on October 27, 2015,
with the notation of “Return to Sender-Refused-Unable to Forward” (Doc. 18).
The respondent’s response to plaintiff’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. 17) alleges petitioner
has failed to specify which of his numerous criminal cases he is contesting, but he has three
possible cases in Muskogee County: Case Nos. CM-15-60, CF-14-998, and CM-14-590.
According to the respondent, however, petitioner’s claims are moot, because all of the
criminal cases either have been resolved by a plea and a finding of guilt, or will be resolved
in the coming weeks (Dkt. 17).
After careful review, the court finds the petition is too vague for the court to determine
whether petitioner has stated a claim for habeas relief. Furthermore, plaintiff has failed to
comply with this court’s Local Civil Rule 5.5(a):
All papers shall contain the name, mailing address, daytime telephone number,
fax number, and e-mail address, if any, of the attorney or pro se litigant. If any
of this information changes, the attorney or pro se litigant must notify the
Court by filing the form provided by the Clerk and serving a copy on opposing
counsel or pro se parties. . . .”
Local Civil Rule 5.5(a).
Because plaintiff has failed to comply with Local Civil Rule 5.5(a) by advising the
court of his current address, this action is dismissed without prejudice for his failure to
prosecute. See United States ex rel. Jimenez v. Health Net, Inc., 400 F.3d 853, 854-56 (10th
Cir. 2005) (dismissing appeal sua sponte for failure to prosecute because appellant
disappeared and failed to meet court deadlines).
ACCORDINGLY, this action is, in all respects, DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute.
Petitioner also is DENIED a certificate of
appealability, because he has not shown “at least, that jurists of reason would find it
debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and
that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether [this] court was correct in its procedural
ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). See also 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED this 2nd day of November 2015.
2
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?