Robinson v. Illinois Department of Corrections, No. 1:2011cv01047 - Document 5 (C.D. Ill. 2011)

Court Description: OPINION and ORDER entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 3/24/11. The 1 Petition is DISMISSED and the 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. This matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for the failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b) and the failure to state a claim in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). SEE FULL ORDER. cc: petitioner. (FDT, ilcd)

Download PDF
Robinson v. Illinois Department of Corrections Doc. 5 E-FILED Thursday, 24 March, 2011 02:21:17 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS PEORIA DIVISION ) ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ) ) Respondent. ) GEORGE J. ROBINSON, Case No. 11-cv-1047 O P I N I O N and O R D E R Before the Court are the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) and the Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2). The Petition is DISMISSED and the Motion is DENIED. On February 18, 2011, this Court informed Petitioner that his Petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 failed to state a claim. This Court further instructed Petitioner to file a prison trust fund account statement in support of his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Petitioner was granted until March 18, 2011 to file an amended petition that would state a claim and to file the account statement. Petitioner was warned that the failure to file the necessary amendments would result in dismissal of the Petition for failure to state a claim. As of the date of this Order, Petitioner has not amended his § 2254 Petition nor has he filed an account statement. Therefore, this matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for the failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b) and the failure to state a claim in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Entered this 24th day of March, 2011 s/ Joe B. McDade JOE BILLY MCDADE United States Senior District Judge Dockets.Justia.com

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.