Pannell v. Rardin

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Austin Pannell, 70522-510, Case No. 25-cv-10330 Petitioner, Honorable Robert J. White v.

Eric Rardin,

Respondent.

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Petitioner Austin Pannell is currently incarcerated in Milan, Michigan. He filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1.) He did not pay the filing fee, nor did he apply to proceed in forma pauperis when he filed the case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); 28 U.S.C. § 1915, Rule 3 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. On February 20, 2025, the Court issued an order directing Pannell to pay the filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis by March 13, 2025. (ECF No. 3.) The order cautioned that failure to correct the deficiency could result in dismissal of this case. The time for submitting the filing fee or moving to proceed in forma pauperis has passed. Pannell has not corrected the deficiency. The Court, therefore, dismisses the habeas petition without prejudice. The Court makes no determination as to its merits. This case is closed. Should Pannell wish to seek

federal habeas relief, he must file a new habeas case with payment of the filing fee or an in forma pauperis application. This case will not be reopened. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus

(ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. A certificate of appealability is not needed to appeal the denial of a habeas petition filed under § 2241, Witham v. United States, 355 F.3d 501, 504 (6th Cir. 2004).

Lastly, the Court concludes that an appeal of this decision cannot be taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962).

Dated: May 1, 2025 s/Robert J. White Robert J. White United States District Judge