Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-2_07-cv-00103/USCOURTS-alsd-2_07-cv-00103-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa

---

1

The Court has added David O. Streiff, warden of the Perry County

Correctional Facility, as a Respondent. According to 28 U.S.C. § 

2242 and the longstanding custodian rule, the warden of the facility

housing the petitioner is the proper Respondent in an action

challenging present confinement under Section 2241. Rumsfeld v.

Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 435, 124 S.Ct. 2711, 2718, 28 L.Ed.2d (2004).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

LORENZO FLEMMINGS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION 07-00103-CG-B

)

DAVID O. STREIFF, et al.1

, )

)

Respondents. )

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This is an action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 2241 by

Lorenzo Flemmings, a citizen and native of Jamaica, who has been

detained by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Immigration

and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) at the Perry County Correctional

Center in Uniontown, Alabama. (Doc. 1). In an Order dated February

14, 2007 (Doc. 2), Petitioner was ordered to pay the $5.00 filing

fee or, in lieu thereof, file a motion to proceed without

prepayment of fees no later than March 13, 2007. Additionally, the

Clerk was directed to mail to Petitioner a form for a motion to

proceed without prepayment of fees. (Id.) 

On February 28, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion to proceed

without prepayment of fees. (Doc. 3). In an Order dated March 13,

Case 2:07-cv-00103-CG-B Document 6 Filed 12/10/07 Page 1 of 5
2

2007, Petitioner’s motion to proceed without prepayment of fees was

denied as deficient because it did not include the statutorily

required copy of the institutional record of Petitioner’s inmate

account reflecting transactions in his account for the three-month

period immediately preceding the filing of his habeas petition.

(Doc. 4). Accordingly, Petitioner was granted leave to re-file his

motion by April 13, 2007, and was directed to include the

institutional record of his prison account reflecting transactions

in his account for the three-month period immediately preceding the

filing of his habeas petition. Petitioner was cautioned that his

failure to comply with the Court’s Order within the prescribed time

would result in the dismissal of this action for failure to

prosecute and to obey the Court’s Order (Id.) On March 22, 2007,

Plaintiff’s copy of the Court’s March 13th Order and the Court’s

form were returned as “undeliverable.” (Doc. 5). To date,

Petitioner has not re-filed his motion to proceed without

prepayment of fees, nor has he paid the $5.00 filing fee. In

addition, no notice of change of address has been filed with the

Court. 

Due to Petitioner's failure to comply with the Court's Order

and to prosecute this action, and upon consideration of the

alternatives that are available to the Court, it is recommended

that this action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule

41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as no other lesser

Case 2:07-cv-00103-CG-B Document 6 Filed 12/10/07 Page 2 of 5
3

sanction will suffice. Link v. Wabash R. R., 370 U.S. 626, 630, 82

S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962) (interpreting Rule 41(b) not to

restrict the court's inherent authority to dismiss sua sponte an

action for lack of prosecution); World Thrust Films, Inc. v.

International Family Entertainment, Inc., 41 F.3d 1454, 1456-57

(11th Cir. 1995); Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-op, 864 F.2d 101,

102 (11th Cir. 1989); Goforth v. Owens, 766 F.2d 1533, 1535 (11th

Cir. 1985); Jones v. Graham, 709 F.2d 1457, 1458 (11th Cir. 1983).

Accord Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 111 S.Ct. 2123, 115

L.Ed.2d 27 (1991) (ruling that federal courts' inherent power to

manage their own proceedings authorized the imposition of

attorney's fees and related expenses as a sanction); Malautea v.

Suzuki Motor Co., 987 F.2d 1536, 1545-46 (11th Cir.) (finding that

the court’s inherent power to manage actions before it permitted

the imposition of fines), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 863, 114 S.Ct.

181, 126 L.Ed.2d 140 (1993).

The attached sheet contains important information regarding

objections to this Report and Recommendation.

DONE this 10th day of December, 2007.

 

 

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-00103-CG-B Document 6 Filed 12/10/07 Page 3 of 5
4

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS

AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION

AND FINDINGS CONCERNING NEED FOR TRANSCRIPT

1. Objection. Any party who objects to this recommendation or

anything in it must, within ten days of the date of service of this

document, file specific written objections with the clerk of court.

Failure to do so will bar a de novo determination by the district

judge of anything in the recommendation and will bar an attack, on

appeal, of the factual findings of the magistrate judge. See 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736, 738 (11th Cir.

1988); Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. Unit B,

1982)(en banc). The procedure for challenging the findings and

recommendations of the magistrate judge is set out in more detail

in SD ALA LR 72.4 (June 1, 1997), which provides that:

A party may object to a recommendation entered by a

magistrate judge in a dispositive matter, that is, a

matter excepted by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), by filing a

“Statement of Objection to Magistrate Judge’s

Recommendation” within ten days after being served with

a copy of the recommendation, unless a different time is

established by order. The statement of objection shall

specify those portions of the recommendation to which

objection is made and the basis for the objection. The

objecting party shall submit to the district judge, at

the time of filing the objection, a brief setting forth

the party’s arguments that the magistrate judge’s

recommendation should be reviewed de novo and a different

disposition made. It is insufficient to submit only a

copy of the original brief submitted to the magistrate

judge, although a copy of the original brief may be

submitted or referred to and incorporated into the brief

in support of the objection. Failure to submit a brief

in support of the objection may be deemed an abandonment

of the objection.

A magistrate judge’s recommendation cannot be appealed to a

Court of Appeals; only the district judge’s order or judgment can

be appealed.

2. Transcript (applicable where proceedings tape recorded).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the magistrate

judge finds that the tapes and original records in this action are

adequate for purposes of review. Any party planning to object to

this recommendation, but unable to pay the fee for a transcript, is

advised that a judicial determination that transcription is

Case 2:07-cv-00103-CG-B Document 6 Filed 12/10/07 Page 4 of 5
5

necessary is required before the United States will pay the cost of

the transcript.

DONE this 10th day of December, 2007.

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-00103-CG-B Document 6 Filed 12/10/07 Page 5 of 5