Smith v. Parker

Filing 28

ORDER: To date, the petitioner has not cured the deficiency pointed out by the court in its 12/13/2011 order. Instead, the petitioner submitted a second notice of appeal, which appears in all aspects other than font to be identical to the notice of a ppeal submitted by the petitioner on 12/8/2011. Consequently, the court deems the petitioner's most recent filing 26 to be entirely duplicative of the notice of appeal filed previously 21 . As a result, no further action is required by the court at this time. The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Clerk of Court for the SixthCircuit Court of Appeals. Signed by Chief Judge Todd J. Campbell on 1/5/12. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(dt)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
LADONTE MONTEZ SMITH,
Petitioner,
v.
TONY PARKER, Warden,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:11-cv-00465
Judge Campbell

ORDER
Before the court is a pro se notice of appeal (Docket No. 26) challenging the court’s order
and memorandum of November 16, 2011 (Docket Nos. 16 & 17) denying the petition for writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and dismissing this action with prejudice.
The petitioner previously filed a pro se notice of appeal (Docket No. 21) challenging the
same order and memorandum. Because the petitioner had not submitted either the full appellate
filing fee or the required documentation to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, the court entered
a deficiency order on December 13, 2011, instructing the petitioner to submit to the Clerk of Court
within thirty (30) days either the full appellate filing fee of four hundred fifty-five dollars ($455.00)
or an application to proceed in forma pauperis with by a certified copy of his trust fund account
statement for the six (6) month period immediately preceding the filing of his notice of appeal.
(Docket No. 22). The petitioner was advised that, if the entire filing fee is not paid or the
appropriate indigency papers are not filed within the designated thirty (30) day period, the Court of
Appeals may dismiss the appeal under Rule 3(a), Fed. R. App. P. for failure to prosecute. (Id.)

1

To date, the petitioner has not cured the deficiency pointed out by the court in its December
13, 2011 order.1 Instead, the petitioner submitted a second notice of appeal, which appears in all
aspects other than font to be identical to the notice of appeal submitted by the petitioner on
December 8, 2011. Consequently, the court deems the petitioner’s most recent filing (Docket No.
26) to be entirely duplicative of the notice of appeal filed previously (Docket No. 21). As a result,
no further action is required by the court at this time.
The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Clerk of Court for the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals.
It is so ORDERED.

Todd J. Campbell
United States District Judge

1

The time within which the petitioner has to respond to the court’s deficiency order has not yet expired. (Docket

No. 22).

2