Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_16-cv-00130/USCOURTS-ared-5_16-cv-00130-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

PINE BLUFF DIVISION 

JOHN BRILEY 

ADC #121521 PETITIONER 

VS. 5:16CV00130 BSM/JTR 

 

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT 

OF CORRECTION RESPONDENT 

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

 The following Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) has been 

sent to Chief United States District Judge Brian S. Miller. You may file written 

objections to all or part of this Recommendation. If you do so, those objections 

must: (1) specifically explain the factual and/or legal basis for your objection; and 

(2) be received by the Clerk of this Court within fourteen (14) days of the entry of 

this Recommendation. The failure to timely file objections may result in waiver of 

the right to appeal questions of fact. 

I. Discussion

 Pending before the Court is a § 2254 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus 

filed by Petitioner, John Briley (“Briley”). Doc. 1. 

Case 5:16-cv-00130-BSM Document 5 Filed 07/08/16 Page 1 of 2
2 

 On April 28, 2016, Briley initiated this habeas action, but neither paid the 

filing fee nor filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 1. On May 16, 

2016, the Court entered an Order informing Briley that, in order for this case to 

proceed, he must either pay the $5.00 filing fee, or file a motion to proceed in 

forma pauperis, by June 13, 2016. Doc. 2. The Order also informed Briley of his 

obligations as a pro se litigant under Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), and that his case could 

be dismissed, without prejudice, due to his failure to timely respond to “any 

communication from the Court[.]” Id. 

 On May 23, 2016, the Clerk’s mailing of the Court’s May 16, 2016 Order 

was returned “not deliverable” from ADC Wrightsville, indicating that Briley had 

been paroled. Doc. 4. Since that time, Briley has not taken any action in this case. 

Accordingly, the Court recommends that this action be dismissed, without 

prejudice, due to lack of prosecution. See Local Rule 5.5(c)(2); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

41(b). 

II. Conclusion

 IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT this habeas action be 

DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, due to lack of prosecution. 

 DATED this 8th day of July, 2016. 

 

 ____________________________________ 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 5:16-cv-00130-BSM Document 5 Filed 07/08/16 Page 2 of 2