United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division
KIMBERLY KHAMISI, KAIA KHAMISI, AYINDE KHAMISI, and JELANI KHAMISI, Petitioners,
JOSEPH DETERS, et al. Respondents.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Stephanie K. Bowman United States Magistrate Judge
have filed individual motions for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis (see Docs. 1-4) in connection
with a pro se submission titled “Verified
Emergency Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary
Injunction of Quasi-Judicial Proceedings, ” seeking an
order requiring “Respondents to immediately release
Claimants that are incarcerated and to dismiss the criminal
indictments and arrests [sic] warrants for lack of
jurisdiction” (Doc. 1-1, at PageID 12).
January 2, 2018, this Court entered a Deficiency Order. (Doc.
5). In the Order, the Court construed petitioners'
submission as a petition for habeas corpus relief under 28
U.S.C. § 2241 and addressed various issues that required
attention before the matter could proceed. (See Doc.
5, at PageID 29). Specifically, the Court indicated that: (1)
multiple petitioners generally are not permitted to file a
single habeas petition; (2) the in forma pauperis
applications submitted by petitioners are incomplete because
they were signed by a third-party who has not demonstrated
authority to act as a “next friend” of
petitioners; (3) it appears from the face of the
habeas corpus petition that the petition may be subject to
dismissal without prejudice because it is premature and/or
petitioners have not exhausted their state court remedies
prior to filing this action; and (4) petitioner Jelani
Khamisi has not signed the petition. (See Doc. 5, at
PageID 29-32). The Court directed petitioners to show cause,
within thirty days of the date of the Order, why the instant
case should not be dismissed without prejudice as premature
or on the ground that petitioners have not exhausted
available administrative remedies. (Doc. 5, at PageID 32).
The Court indicated that if any petitioner responded with
information indicating that the action should not be
dismissed, the Court would sever the petitioner's claim
and require the petitioner to either pay the $5 fee required
to commence a habeas action, or submit to the Court a renewed
in forma pauperis application. The Court further
ordered petitioner Jelani Khamisi to submit a signed copy of
the petition with any response to the Order (Doc. 5) that he
filed. Petitioners were also advised that failure to respond
to the Deficiency Order within the requisite thirty-day
period will result in the dismissal of the case for want of
prosecution. (Doc. 5, at PageID 32).
date, more than thirty days after the Court's January 2,
2018 Order, petitioners have failed to respond to the
courts have the inherent power to sua sponte dismiss
civil actions for want of prosecution “to manage their
own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious
disposition of cases.” Link v. Wabash R.R.,
370 U.S. 626, 630-631 (1962). Failure of a party to respond
to an order of the Court warrants invocation of the
Court's inherent power in this federal habeas corpus
proceeding. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see
also Rule 11, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the
United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.
because petitioners have failed to respond to the Court's
Deficiency Order issued on January 2, 2018, this case should
be DISMISSED for lack of prosecution.
therefore RECOMMENDED that this matter be
DISMISSED for lack of prosecution. The Clerk
of Court is DIRECTED to send a copy of this
Report and Recommendation to petitioners Kimberly Khamisi,
Kaia Khamisi, and Ayinde Khamisi at the address provided by
petitioners and to send a copy of this Report and
Recommendation to petitioner Jelani Khamisi at the Hamilton
County Justice Center address that he provided to the Court
in No. 17-cv-819.
IS SO RECOMMENDED.
to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), WITHIN 14 DAYS after
being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a
party may serve and file specific written objections to the
proposed findings and recommendations. This period may be
extended further by the Court on timely motion for an
extension. Such objections shall specify the portions of the
Report objected to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum
of law in support of the objections. If the Report and
Recommendation is based in whole or in part upon matters
occurring on the record at an oral hearing, the objecting
party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the
record, or such portions of it as all parties may agree upon,
or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the assigned
District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to
another party's objections WITHIN 14
DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. Failure
to make objections in accordance with this procedure may
forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d
947 (6th Cir. 1981).
See Acord v. California, No.
1:17-cv-1089, 2017 WL 4699835, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 19,