Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-2_19-cv-00064/USCOURTS-ared-2_19-cv-00064-0/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

---

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

DELTA DIVISION 

LAMAR C. CHAPMAN, III PETITIONER 

REG. #28648-009 

 

vs. No. 2:19-CV-00064-BSM-JTR 

 

THOMAS J. SCARANTINO, 

Complex Warden, FCC-Butner, 

North Carolina1

 RESPONDENT 

 

 

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

 The following Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) has been sent 

to 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. 

 1

 When Mr. Chapman initially filed this case, he was at the Federal Correctional Institution 

in Forrest City, Arkansas. However, he was subsequently moved to the Federal Correctional 

Complex in Butner, North Carolina, and the Respondent was changed to reflect the warden of the 

facility where Mr. Chapman is incarcerated. See Notice of Change of Address, Doc. 4; 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2242 (habeas petition must name “the person who has custody over [the petitioner] and by virtue 

of what claim or authority”). 

Case 2:19-cv-00064-BSM Document 20 Filed 12/11/19 Page 1 of 4
2 

I. Discussion

 On June 7, 2019, Petitioner, Lamar C. Chapman III (“Chapman”) filed a 

Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, Doc. 1, and a document entitled 

“Emergency Petition Verified Writ Habeas Corpus,” which was initially treated as a 

Petition for Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Doc. 2. 

 On July 1, 2019, the Court entered an Order giving Carter until August 1, 2019 

to: (1) Complete Form AO 242 in order to initiate a claim for § 2241 habeas relief; 

and (2) either pay the $5.00 filing fee in full, or file a properly completed 

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Doc. 3. The Order explained in detail 

the deficiencies in Chapman’s initially filed habeas Petition, and it also struck the 

habeas Petition. Finally, the Order advised Chapman that if he failed “to timely and 

properly comply” with the Order,” his habeas action could “be dismissed, without 

prejudice, pursuant to Local Rule 5.5(c)(2).”2

 Id. 

 2

 Rule 5.5(c)(2) of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern and 

Western Districts of Arkansas provides: 

It is the duty of any party not represented by counsel to promptly notify the Clerk 

and the other parties to the proceedings of any change in his or her address, to 

monitor the progress of the case, and to prosecute or defend the action diligently. 

A party appearing for himself/herself shall sign his/her pleadings and state his/her 

address, zip code, and telephone number. If any communication from the Court to 

a pro se plaintiff is not responded to within thirty (30) days, the case may be 

dismissed without prejudice. Any party proceeding pro se shall be expected to be 

familiar with and follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

(emphasis added).

Case 2:19-cv-00064-BSM Document 20 Filed 12/11/19 Page 2 of 4
3 

 Chapman did not comply with the Court’s July 1, 2019 Order. 

 On August 14, 2019, the Court entered an Order again advising Chapman that 

he had to comply with the July 1, 2019 Order in order to proceed with this case. 

Doc. 6. The Court set a new deadline of September 13, 2019 for Chapman to 

comply. 

 Chapman did not comply with the Court’s August 14, 2019 Order.3

 

 On September 3, 2019, the Court entered an third Order advising Chapman 

that he had to comply with the Court’s July 1, 2019 Order before this case could 

proceed. Doc. 11. The Order specifically advised Chapman that if he failed to 

timely and fully comply, I would recommend that this action be dismissed. 

 On September 16, 2019, Chapman appealed my rulings to District Judge Brian 

S. Miller. Doc. 12. 

 On November 19, 2019, Judge Miller denied Chapman’s appeal. Doc. 14. 

 Since filing this action over five months ago, Chapman has failed to make any 

effort to comply with three separate Orders telling him what he must do for the Court 

to be able to screen this case so that it can even potentially move forward. 

 

 3

 Chapman did, however, file two Motions, neither of which complied with this Court’s 

prior Orders and both of which were denied in the Court’s Order filed on September 3, 2019. Doc. 

11. 

Case 2:19-cv-00064-BSM Document 20 Filed 12/11/19 Page 3 of 4
4 

II. Conclusion 

 IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT this action be DISMISSED 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

 Dated this 11th day of December, 2019. 

 

 ____________________________________ 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:19-cv-00064-BSM Document 20 Filed 12/11/19 Page 4 of 4