Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00690/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00690-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WILLIE PATTON-BEY, :

Petitioner, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 06-0690-WS-C 

U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION, et al., :

Respondents. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This action was referred to the undersigned pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local

Rule 72.2, and is now before the Court for Petitioner's failure to prosecute and to obey the

Court's Orders (Docs. 3, 5).

Petitioner, an Alabama prison inmate proceeding pro se, on October 17, 2006, filed a

"Petition for Preliminary Injunction/Temporary Restraining Order" (Doc. 1). Petitioner failed

to pay the required filing fee of $350.00 or file a motion to proceed without prepayment of fees. 

Petitioner was ordered by November 27, 2006, to either pay the required filing fee or file a

motion to proceed without prepayment of fees. 

On November 7, 2006, Petitioner filed a motion to convert his "Petition for Preliminary

Injunction/Temporary Restraining Order" into a § 2241 habeas corpus petition (see Docs. 1, 4). 

Petitioner did not file his petition on this Court’s form and failed to pay the required filing fee of

$5.00 or file a motion to proceed without prepayment of fees. The Court, again, ordered

Petitioner by November 27, 2006, to complete and file this Court’s form for a petition under 28

Case 1:06-cv-00690-WS-C Document 8 Filed 12/07/06 Page 1 of 4
2

U.S.C. § 2254 and form for a motion to proceed without prepayment of fees (Doc. 5). Petitioner

was sent the petition form and a motion to proceed without prepayment of fees form. Petitioner

was warned that his failure to comply with the Court's Order within the prescribed time would

result in the dismissal of his action (Doc. 5). Although petitioner has informed the Court that a

mistake was made when he was required to file his habeas on an irrelevant form, he has not paid

a filing fee, filed an IFP petition or otherwise explained his failure to do so.

Due to Petitioner's failure to prove his IFP status or otherwise pay a filing fee of $5.00 as

was required by the Court's Order of November 15, 2006 (Doc. 5), and upon consideration of the

alternatives 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

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 Coop, 864 F.2d 101, 102 (11th Cir. 1989); Goforth v. Owens, 766 F.2d 1533, 1535 (11th Cir.

1983); 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.

1993)(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

Court has notified Petitioner on two occasions of his need to pay a filing fee or file an IFP

Case 1:06-cv-00690-WS-C Document 8 Filed 12/07/06 Page 2 of 4
3

petition, yet he has chosen to do neither. It does not appear that affording him an additional

opportunity would produce a different result.

The attached sheet contains important information regarding objections to the Report and

Recommendation.

DONE this 7th day of December, 2006.

s/WILLIAM E. CASSADY 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00690-WS-C Document 8 Filed 12/07/06 Page 3 of 4
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 necessary is required before the United States will pay the cost

of the transcript.

Case 1:06-cv-00690-WS-C Document 8 Filed 12/07/06 Page 4 of 4