Rees v. Rardin

• Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
• Decided: August 26, 2025
• Docket: 5:25-cv-10293
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Michael Rees,

Petitioner, Case No. 25-cv-10293

v. Judith E. Levy United States District Judge Eric Rardin, Mag. Judge Kimberly G. Altman Respondent.

________________________________/

ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS PETITION [1] WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Petitioner Michael Rees—who is currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution, Milan in Milan, Michigan—filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner, however, failed to pay the filing fee or submit the necessary papers to proceed in forma pauperis. On February 20, 2025, the Court ordered Petitioner to correct the filing fee deficiency within twenty-one days or risk dismissal of the case (“Deficiency Order”). (See ECF No. 3.) Petitioner then filed a motion for an extension of time to pay the filing fee. (See ECF No. 5.) On May 5, 2025, the Court granted Petitioner’s motion and gave him an additional thirty days—until June 5, 2025—to correct the filing fee deficiency. (See ECF No. 6.) The deadline

specified in the Court’s May 5, 2025 order has elapsed. Petitioner has not paid the filing fee or submitted an application to proceed in forma

pauperis, as required by the Court’s Deficiency Order. (ECF No. 3.) Nor has Petitioner requested another extension of time to pay the filing fee or communicated with the Court about his failure to meet the Court’s

deadline. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), a federal district court may sua sponte dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or to comply

with a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629–33 (1962). “This measure is available to the district court as a tool to effect management of its docket and avoidance of unnecessary

burdens on the tax-supported courts [and] opposing parties.” Knoll v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 176 F.3d 359, 363 (6th Cir. 1999) (alteration in original) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

Here, Petitioner failed to comply with the Court’s Deficiency Order despite being given an extension of time to do so. Petitioner did not pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis by June 5, 2025. (See ECF Nos. 3, 6.) The Deficiency Order warned Petitioner that the failure to remedy the filing fee deficiency may result

in the dismissal of the action. (See ECF No. 3.) The petition is therefore dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Gravitt v.

Tyszkiewicz, 14 F. App’x 348, 349 (6th Cir. 2001) (“conclud[ing] that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed [a habeas] petition for want of prosecution” under Rule 41(b); “[b]ecause [the

petitioner] failed to pay the filing fee or submit the required documentation to the district court in order to apply to proceed in forma pauperis, his petition was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution”);

May v. Pike Lake State Park, 8 F. App’x 507, 508 (6th Cir. 2001) (“Although pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than attorneys, dismissal of a case for lack of prosecution is appropriate when

a pro se litigant fails to adhere to readily comprehended court deadlines.” (citing Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir. 1991))). For the reasons set forth above, the habeas petition (ECF No. 1) is

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Petitioner’s motion to supplement (ECF No. 4) and motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 7) are DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 26, 2025 s/Judith E. Levy Ann Arbor, Michigan JUDITH E. LEVY United States District Judge

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 August 26, 2025.

s/William Barkholz WILLIAM BARKHOLZ Case Manager