Williams v. Stewart, No. 5:2016cv13234 - Document 5 (E.D. Mich. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER Dismissing 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - Signed by District Judge Judith E. Levy. (FMos)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Williams v. Stewart Doc. 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION Delniece J’Nay Williams, Petitioner, v. Case No. 16-cv-13234 Judith E. Levy United States District Judge Anthony Stewart, Mag. Judge Patricia T. Morris Respondent. ________________________________/ ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS [1] On September 8, 2016, Petitioner Delniece J’Nay Williams filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Dkt. 1.) Petitioner did not file the required $5.00 filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis. On September 15, 2016, the Court issued a deficiency order, requiring Petitioner to file either the filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis within twenty-one (21) days. (Dkt. 4.) To date, Petitioner has not responded to this order. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. (Dkt. 1.) The Court makes no Dockets.Justia.com determination as to the merits of the petition. This case is closed, and should Petitioner wish to seek federal habeas relief, she must file a new petition with the $5.00 filing fee or an in forma pauperis application. When a court disposes of a habeas petition, it must also decide whether to issue a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(a); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A certificate of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This showing is met if “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484–85 (2000). Reasonable jurists would not debate the correctness of the Court’s procedural ruling. Accordingly, the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 1, 2017 Ann Arbor, Michigan s/Judith E. Levy JUDITH E. LEVY United States District Judge 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on February 1, 2017. s/Felicia M. Moses FELICIA M. MOSES Case Manager 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.
