Sanders v. Wickersham

• Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
• Decided: August 22, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-11969
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

KOREY SANDERS,

Petitioner, Case No. 2:24-cv-11969

v. Honorable Susan K. DeClercq United States District Judge ANTHONY M. WICKERSHAM,

Respondent. ___________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS PETITION FOR FAILING TO CORRECT FILING DEFICIENCIES AND FOR LACKING MERIT, DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND DENYING LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Korey Sanders, incarcerated at Macomb County Jail in Mt. Clemens, Michigan, has filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, unaided by counsel. ECF No. 1. Sanders seeks review of a detainer issued in connection with his violation of the terms of his federal supervised release. But he did not pay the $5.00 filing fee, file a properly supported application to proceed without prepayment, or file a petition complying with minimum pleading requirements for initiating a habeas action. See ECF No. 2. He was warned that failing to fix these issues would result in dismissal of his petition with prejudice. See ECF No. 7. Sanders’s deadline was August 16, 2024. See FED. R. CIV. P. 6(d). To date, he has not prepaid the fees, properly requested an exemption, or filed a facially sufficient habeas petition.

He has also failed to keep the Court informed of his whereabouts, in violation of this Court’s Notice dated August 2, 2024. ECF No. 4 at PageID.15. All efforts by this Court to reach Sanders by mail have been fruitless. ECF No. 9, 10, 11, 12 (Mail

Returned as Unavailable). Therefore, this Court must presume that he is proceeding without prepayment, assess the whole fee, and dismiss the case for failure to prosecute. McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 605 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by

Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 203 (2007). “If the case is dismissed under these circumstances, it is not to be reinstated to the district court’s active docket”—even if the plaintiff attempts to pay the filing fees. Id.; see also Baxter v. Rose, 305 F.3d

486, 489 (6th Cir. 2002) (holding that McGore applies “where the district court dismisses cases sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A”), abrogated on other grounds by Jones, 549 U.S. 199; see also Redd v. Redmon, 215 F.3d 1327 (6th Cir. 2000) (unpublished table decision) (same for cases dismissed “under § 1915(e)(2)(A)”);

Boussum v. Washington, 655 F. Supp. 3d 636, 642 (E.D. Mich. 2023) (same for cases dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Petition, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b), (e)(2)(A); FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b);

Rule 2 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. Further, it is ORDERED that the Petition is PROHIBITED from being reinstated to the district court’s active docket—even if Plaintiff attempts to pay the

filing fees. Further, it is ORDERED that Petitioner is DENIED a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A); FED. R. APP. P. 22(b). Further, it is ORDERED that Petitioner is DENIED leave to proceed in forma

pauperis on appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). This final order closes the above-captioned case. /s/Susan K. DeClercq SUSAN K. DeCLERCQ United States District Judge Dated: 8/22/2024