Pruitt v. Williams, No. 2:2015cv02290 - Document 6 (N.D. Ala. 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge L Scott Coogler on 3/30/2016. (PSM)
Pruitt v. Williams Doc. 6 FILED 2016 Mar-30 PM 02:05 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION LESLIE SEAN PRUITT, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Petitioner, v. WARDEN DOUG WILLIAMS, Respondent. Case No.: 2:15-cv-02290-LSC-JHE MEMORANDUM OPINION On December 21, 2015, Petitioner Leslie Sean Pruitt filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1). Because Pruitt neither paid the $5.00 filing fee nor applied to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court issued a notice of deficient pleading on January 4, 2016, informing him that his failure to do one or the other within thirty days of the date of the notice would result in dismissal of his case for want of prosecution. (Doc. 2) (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b)). On January 25, 2016, the court received a pleading styled “Motion and Brief of Habeas Corpus” from Pruitt, but no fee or application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 3). Because this information did not resolve the pleading deficiency as outlined in the original notice, the undersigned sent Pruitt a second notice of deficient pleading explaining that he must either pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit a verified application to proceed in forma pauperis within thirty days. (Doc. 4). Since that time, the court has received another pleading, styled “Motion of Supplemental Brief,” but no fee or application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 5). The deadline set in the second notice of deficient pleading has passed, and Pruitt has not paid the filing fee or filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, his petition Dockets.Justia.com is due to be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for want of prosecution. A separate order will be entered. DONE and ORDERED on March 30, 2016. _____________________________ L. Scott Coogler United States District Judge 160704
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
Terms of Service