UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANGELA BLACKWELL, 

Petitioner, Civil No. 2:14-CV-11718

 Honorable Gershwin A. Drain

v. 

MILLICENT WARREN,

Respondent,

 /

OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS AND DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

Angela Blackwell, (“Petitioner”), confined at the Huron Valley Women’s Correctional

Facility in Ypsilanti, Michigan, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254 with this Court on or about April 29, 2014. On May 8, 2014, Magistrate

Judge R. Steven Whalen signed an “Order to Correct Deficiency,” in which Ms. Blackwell

was ordered to submit a $ 5.00 fee for filing a habeas corpus petition or an application to

proceed in forma pauperis within twenty one days of the order. For the reasons stated

below, Ms. Blackwell’s action is dismissed without prejudice because of her failure to

comply with an order of the court.

I. Discussion

Ms. Blackwell’s application is subject to dismissal, because she failed to comply with

the order of deficiency by either submitting the $5.00 filing fee or an application to proceed

in forma pauperis. 

If a prisoner who seeks habeas corpus relief does not comply with a district court’s

1

2:14-cv-11718-GAD-MJH Doc # 4 Filed 06/20/14 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 53
directions in a deficiency order, regarding the prisoner’s failure to pay the full filing fee and

his or her failure to provide the required documentation to apply to proceed in forma

pauperis, the district court must presume that the prisoner is not a pauper, assess the full

filing fee, and dismiss the case for want of prosecution. See Gravitt v. Tyszkiewicz, 14 Fed.

Appx. 348, 349 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F. 3d 601, 605 (6th

Cir. 1997)). The deficiency order clearly stated that Ms. Blackwell was required to submit

either the $ 5.00 filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The deficiency

order also expressly warned petitioner that failure to comply with the order could result in

the dismissal of her action. Because Ms. Blackwell failed to pay the filing fee or submit the

required application to proceed in forma pauperis, her petition is subject to dismissal for

want of prosecution. Gravitt, 14 Fed. Appx. at 349.

The Court will summarily dismiss the petition for writ of habeas corpus without

prejudice. The Court will also deny a certificate of appealability. In order to obtain a

certificate of appealability, a prisoner must make a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When a district court denies a habeas petition

on procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner’s underlying constitutional claims, a

certificate of appealability should issue, and an appeal of the district court’s order may be

taken, if the petitioner shows that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the

petitioner states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right, and that jurists of reason

would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling. Slack

v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). “The district court must issue or deny a certificate

of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” Rules Governing §

2254 Cases, Rule 11(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.

2

2:14-cv-11718-GAD-MJH Doc # 4 Filed 06/20/14 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 54
The Court will deny Ms. Blackwell a certificate of appealability, because the

dismissal of the petition based on petitioner’s failure to cure her filing deficiencies would not

be debatable amongst jurists of reason. See Soeken v. Estep, 270 Fed. Appx. 734, 735-36

(10th Cir. 2008). 

II. ORDER

Based upon the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Nothing in this order precludes

petitioner from submitting a new habeas petition with payment of the filing fee or the in

forma pauperis application. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 20, 2014 /s/ Gershwin A. Drain 

GERSHWIN A. DRAIN 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record

on June 20, 2014, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

/s/ Tanya Bankston 

Deputy Clerk

3

2:14-cv-11718-GAD-MJH Doc # 4 Filed 06/20/14 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 55