Dutra v. United States of America, No. 5:2006cv00098 - Document 7 (E.D. Ky. 2006)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER that the matter is DISMISSED; judgment shall be entered in favor of respondent. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood. (KJR)cc: COR
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Dutra v. United States of America Doc. 7 Case 5:06-cv-00098-JMH Document 7 Filed 06/15/2006 NOT FOR PUBLICATION OR CITATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LEXINGTON Page 1 of 2 Eastern District of Kentucky FlLEQ JUN 1 5 2006 AT LEXINGTON LESLIE G WHlTMER CLERK u S DISTRICT COURT CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-CV-98-JMH PETITIONER RODNEY DUTRA vs: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RESPONDENT Rodney Dutra, who is currently incarcerated in the Cardinal Unit of the Federal Medical Center in Lexington, Kentucky, filed apro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $2241 [Record No. 11. The petitioner named the United States of America as the respondent. The petitioner did not submit either the filing fee of $5.00 or the documents necessary to apply for in forma pauperis status as required by 28 U.S.C. ยง1915(a)). The petitioner also failed to provide the Court with documentation supporting his claim that he had fully exhausted his Bureau of Prisons ( BOP ) administrative remedies. Accordingly, on May 10,2006, the Court entered a Deficiency Order [Record No. 21. In that Order, the Court instructed the petitioner to provide the Court with: (1) an affidavit of assetsfinforma pauperis application and a completed Certificate of Inmate Account Form; and (2) documentation that his BOP administrative remedies either were not available or that they had been exhausted at all levels. The Court clearly advised the petitioner that if he failed to comply within 30 days, the Court would dismiss the petition for want of prosecution [Id.,7 21. The DeficiencyOrder also stated that if the Court dismissed the petition on these grounds, it would not be reinstated to this Dockets.Justia.com Case 5:06-cv-00098-JMH Document 7 Filed 06/15/2006 Page 2 of 2 Court s active docket despite the subsequent payment of the filing fee [Id.]. The record reflects that on May 10, 2006, the Clerk of the Court mailed a copy of the Deficiency Order to the d petitioner at his address at FMC-Lexington [See Z . (Attachment: Clerk s Notation)]. There is no indication in the record that the copy of the Deficiency Order, which the Clerk of the Court mailed to the petitioner on May 10, 2006, was returned to the Court as Undeliverable for any reason. The petitioner has neither responded to the Deficiency Order nor requested an extension of time in which to do so. The lenient treatment generally accorded to pro se litigants has limits. Pilgrim v. Littlejeld, 92 F.3d 413, 416 (6th Cir. 1996) (dismissal ofpro se complaint was appropriate where plaintiff failed to respond to defendants Rule 12(c) motion when ordered to do so by mugistratejudge) (emphasis added); see also Jourdun v. Jube, 95 1 F.2d 108,110 (6th Cir. 1991) (apro se litigant is not afforded special consideration for failure to follow readily comprehended court orders). The petitioner bears some responsibility in pursuing his claims in timely fashion. His failure to respond to the Deficiency Order is an abandonment of his claims. The Court will dismiss the petition, without prejudice, for want of prosecution. CONCLUSION Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED. Judgment shall be entered contemporaneously with this memorandum opinion in favor of the named respondent. This the \ & % l a y of June, 2006. , CHIEF JUDGE 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
