UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

KELLEY FAVORS,

Petitioner,

v.

ANTHONY STEWART,

Respondent.

 /

Case No. 2:14-14364

HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING THE PETITION 

FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY, AND DENYING LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS

The case sounds in habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Michigan

parolee Kelley Favors was convicted of aggravated stalking, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.411i,

pursuant to a plea in the Macomb County Circuit Court in 2011. He was initially sentenced

to a probationary term, but after violating the conditions of his probation, he was sentenced

as a second habitual offender to 17 months to five years imprisonment in 2013. Mich.

Comp. Laws § 769.10. Favors instituted the present habeas action in November 2014. In

his pro se pleadings, Favors raises claims concerning the validity of his plea, a change in

his probationary sentence from two years to five years to comport with state law, and the

effectiveness of trial counsel. Respondent has filed an answer to the petition and informs

the Court that Favors is on parole and contends that his claims are procedurally defaulted

and/or lack merit. See Resp., ECF No. 6. For the reasons below, the Court will dismiss the

petition without prejudice. The Court also concludes that a certificate of appealability and

leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal must be denied.

2:14-cv-14364-SJM Doc # 9 Filed 11/22/16 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 395
DISCUSSION

Local Rule 11.2 authorizes the Court to dismiss a case based upon a party's failure

to keep the Court apprised of address changes and updated contact information. The rule

states:

Every attorney and every party not represented by an attorney must include his

or her contact information consisting of his or her address, e-mail address, and

telephone number on the first paper that person files in a case. If there is a

change in the contact information, that person promptly must file and serve a

notice with the new contact information. The failure to file promptly current

contact information may subject that person or party to appropriate sanctions,

which may include dismissal, default judgment, and costs.

L.R. 11.2. Pro se litigants have the same obligation as an attorney to notify the court of a

change of address. Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir.1988). "'[Petitioner] has

the duty to inform the court of any address changes,' and it is not incumbent upon this

Court or its staff to keep track of Petitioner's current address." Thompkins v. Metrish, No.

2:07-CV-12, 2009 WL 2595604, at *1 n.1 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 20, 2009) (quoting Kelly v. WalMart, Inc., No. 7:07-CV-0089, 2007 WL 2847068, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2007)).

Additionally, Civil Rule 41(b) authorizes a federal court to dismiss a case if "the

plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order," Fed. R. Civ. P.

41(b), and Local Rule 41.2 authorizes the Court to dismiss a case "when it appears that .

. . the parties have taken no action for a reasonable time." L.R. 41.2. The Court may

therefore dismiss a civil action for failure to prosecute. See Mulbah v. Detroit Bd. of Educ.,

261 F.3d 586, 589 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962)).

Shortly after Favors filed his habeas petition in November 2014, the Court sent him

a notice advising him of Local Rule 11.2 and his duty to inform the Court of any change of

address. See Not., ECF No. 2. The notice stated that the failure to provide updated contact

2

2:14-cv-14364-SJM Doc # 9 Filed 11/22/16 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 396
information could result in dismissal of his case. Id.; see also Watsy v. Richards, No. 86-

1856, 1987 WL 37151 (6th Cir. April 20, 1987) (affirming a district court's dismissal under

similar circumstances). The record indicates that Favors has been released on parole and

has not communicated with the Court since he filed his habeas petition nearly two years

ago. Because Favors has failed to provide the Court with his current address and updated

contact information as required by Local Rule 11.2 and the Court's notice, the Court will

dismiss the case without prejudice for want of prosecution.

Before Favors may appeal the Court's decision, a certificate of appealability must

issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(a); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A federal district court must issue

or deny a certificate of appealability when denying relief. Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing

2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. A certificate of appealability may issue "only if the

applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2). When a federal court denies relief on procedural grounds without addressing

the merits of a habeas petition, a certificate of appealability should issue if it is shown 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, 484–85

(2000). 

Having considered the matter, the Court concludes that reasonable jurists could not

debate the correctness of the Court's procedural ruling. A certificate of appealability is

therefore unwarranted.

Lastly, the Court concludes that Favors should not be allowed to proceed in forma

pauperis on appeal as an appeal cannot be taken in good faith. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a).

3

2:14-cv-14364-SJM Doc # 9 Filed 11/22/16 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 397
ORDER

WHEREFORE it is hereby ORDERED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed

in forma pauperis on appeal are DENIED.

s/Stephen J. Murphy, III 

STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

United States District Judge

Dated: November 22, 2016

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or

counsel of record on November 22, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/David P. Parker 

Acting Case Manager

4

2:14-cv-14364-SJM Doc # 9 Filed 11/22/16 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 398