Camp et al v. Hemingway et al, No. 2:2020cv11667 - Document 4 (E.D. Mich. 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER Summarily Dismissing the 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Signed by District Judge Gershwin A. Drain. (TMcg)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Camp et al v. Hemingway et al Doc. 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION DESMOND CAMP, ET AL., Petitioners, Case No. 2:20-cv-11667 v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE GERSHWIN A. DRAIN JONATHAN HEMINGWAY, ET AL., Respondents. ___________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS I. INTRODUCTION Desmond Camp, Paul Walker, Gary Harris, Prince Albert-Junior Thompson, Bernardo Vargas-Adomes, Aaseem Alam, Bryant Daugherty, Anthony Edwards, Thomas G. Thompson (together, “Petitioners”), confined at the Federal Correctional Institution in Milan, Michigan, filed a joint pro se application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. On July 9, 2020, Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen signed an “Order to Correct Deficiency,” in which Petitioners were 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. At the time of this writing, Petitioners have neither submitted the $5.00 filing fee or an Dockets.Justia.com application to proceed in forma pauperis. For the reasons that follow, Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) is dismissed without prejudice. II. DISCUSSION Upon review of the present matter, the Court finds that Petitioners failed to comply with the order of deficiency by either submitting the $5.00 filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis. If a prisoner who seeks habeas corpus relief does not comply with a district court’s directions in a deficiency order—including directions regarding the prisoner’s failure to pay the full filing fee or 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 F. App’x 348, 349 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 605 (6th Cir. 1997)). Here, the deficiency order clearly stated that Petitioners were required to submit either the $5.00 filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 3. Moreover, the deficiency order expressly warned Petitioners that their failure to comply with the order could result in the dismissal of their action. Id. In light of Petitioners’ failure to pay the requisite filing fee or submit the required application to proceed in forma pauperis, the petition is subject to dismissal for want of prosecution. Gravitt, 14 F. App’x at 349; see also Bischoff v. Genesis House, No. 06-cv-10231, 2006 WL 2 752755, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 21, 2006). Accordingly, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is summarily dismissed without prejudice. III. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Nothing in this order precludes Petitioners from submitting a new habeas petition or petitions with payment of the filing fee or the in forma pauperis application SO ORDERED. Dated: September 24, 2020 /s/Gershwin A. Drain GERSHWIN A. DRAIN United States District Judge CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE A Copy of this Order was served on Desmond Camp, No. 31249-039, Federal Correctional Institution Milan, P.O. Box 1000, Milan, Michigan 48160 on September 24, 2020, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. /s/ Teresa McGovern Deputy Clerk 3
]]>
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.
