Gomez v. Davis, No. 2:2007cv12505 - Document 3 (E.D. Mich. 2007)
Court Description: OPINION and ORDER of Summary Dismissal. Signed by Honorable Arthur J Tarnow (SMar)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Gomez v. Davis Doc. 3 Case 2:07-cv-12505-AJT-VMM Document 3 Filed 08/09/2007 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ANGELINA GOMEZ, Petitioner, v. Civil No. 2:07-CV-12505 HONORABLE ARTHUR J. TARNOW UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SUSAN DAVIS, Respondent, / OPINION AND ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL Angelina Gomez, ( Petitioner ), presently confined in the Huron Valley Women s Complex in Ypsilanti, Michigan, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254. On June 14, 2007, Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen signed an Order to Correct Deficiency, in which Petitioner was ordered to submit a $ 5.00 fee for filing a habeas corpus petition or an application to proceed in forma pauperis within twenty one days of the order. For the reasons stated below, Petitioner s action is dismissed without prejudice because of Petitioner s failure to comply with an order of the court. I. Discussion Petitioner s application is subject to dismissal, because she failed to comply with the order of deficiency by either submitting the $ 5.00 filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:07-cv-12505-AJT-VMM Document 3 Filed 08/09/2007 Page 2 of 2 Gomez v. Davis, 2:07-12505 If a prisoner who seeks habeas corpus relief does not comply with a district court s directions in a deficiency order, regarding the prisoner s failure to pay the full filing fee and his failure to provide the required documentation to apply to proceed in forma pauperis, the district court must presume that the prisoner is not a pauper, assess the full filing fee, and dismiss the case for want of prosecution. See Gravitt v. Tyszkiewicz, 14 Fed. Appx. 348, 349 (6th Cir. 2001)(citing McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F. 3d 601, 605 (6th Cir. 1997)). The deficiency order clearly stated that Petitioner was required to submit either the $ 5.00 filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The deficiency order also expressly warned Petitioner that failure to comply with the order could result in the dismissal of his action. Because Petitioner failed to pay the filing fee or submit the required application to proceed in forma pauperis, her petition is subject to dismissal for want of prosecution. Gravitt, 14 Fed. Appx. at 349. II. ORDER Based upon the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Nothing in this order precludes Petitioner from submitting a new habeas petition with payment of the filing fee or the in forma pauperis application. Dated: 8/9/07 s/Arthur J. Tarnow HON. ARTHUR J. TARNOW UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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.
