Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Dabney v. Warden, Chillicothe Correctional Institution

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division

March 5, 2019

JAMES DABNEY, Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN, CHILLICOTHE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent.

          Black, J.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          Stephanie K. Bowman United States Magistrate Judge

         Petitioner, a prisoner in state custody at the Chillicothe Correctional Institution pursuant to Hamilton County, Ohio convictions, [1] initiated this habeas corpus action on September 6, 2018. (See Doc. 1). However, to date, petitioner has failed to file a habeas corpus petition.

         On February 5, 2019, the undersigned issued its third Order requiring that petitioner submit a completed and signed petition for habeas corpus, specifying the conviction and sentence he wishes to challenge, his grounds for relief, and the specific relief sought within twenty-one (21) days. (See Doc. 9, 12, 14). Petitioner was advised that no further extensions of time will be granted and his failure to comply with the Order “will result in the dismissal of this action for want of prosecution.” (Doc. 14 at PageID 64).

         To date, more than twenty-one days after the Court's February 5, 2019 Order, petitioner has failed to comply with the Order of the Court.[2]

         District 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.

         Accordingly, because petitioner has failed to comply with the Orders issued on December 13, 2018, January 10, 2019, and February 5, 2019 (Docs. 9, 12, 14), this action should be DISMISSED for lack of prosecution.

         It is therefore RECOMMENDED that this matter be DISMISSED for lack of prosecution.

         IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.

         NOTICE

         Pursuant 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).

---------

Notes:

[1] The Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction offender details page indicates that petitioner is currently serving sentences for two counts of telecommunications fraud and one count each of money laundering and theft. Viewed at ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.