UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

JELANI KHAMISI, Case No. 1:18-cv-269

Petitioner,

Dlott, J.

v. Litkovitz, M.J.

SHERIFF, HAMILTON COUNTY, et al., REPORT AND

Respondents. RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner, a pretrial detainee at the Hamilton County Justice Center, has filed a petition 

for a writ of habeas corpus in this Court. (Doc. 1). On April 24, 2018, the Court issued a 

Deficiency Order, requiring petitioner to either pay the $5.00 filing fee or file a motion for leave 

to proceed without prepayment of fees within thirty (30) days. (Doc. 2). Furthermore, petitioner 

was ordered to show cause within thirty (30) days why the instant action should not be dismissed 

without prejudice as premature or on the ground that petitioner has not exhausted available state 

court remedies.1 (See id.). Petitioner was also advised that failure to comply with the 

Deficiency Order will result in the dismissal of this action for want of prosecution. 

To date, more than thirty days after the Court’s April 24, 2018 Order, petitioner has failed 

to comply with the Deficiency Order. 

District courts have the inherent power to sua sponte dismiss civil actions for want of 

prosecution “to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition 

of cases.” Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 630-631 (1962). Failure of a party to respond to 

an order of the Court warrants invocation of the Court’s inherent power in this federal habeas 

 1 In the Deficiency Order, the undersigned noted that petitioner had previously filed three similar habeas corpus 

actions in this Court. (See Doc. 2 at n.1). 

Case: 1:18-cv-00269-SJD-KLL Doc #: 3 Filed: 06/01/18 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 7
2

corpus proceeding. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Rule 11, Rules Governing Section 2254 

Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 

Accordingly, because petitioner has failed to comply with the Deficiency Order issued on 

April 24, 2018, petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) should be DISMISSED

for lack of prosecution.

It is therefore RECOMMENDED that this matter be DISMISSED for lack of 

prosecution. 

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.

Date: 6/1/2018 s/ Karen L. Litkovitz 

Karen L. Litkovitz 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case: 1:18-cv-00269-SJD-KLL Doc #: 3 Filed: 06/01/18 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 8
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

 

JELANI KHAMISI, Case No. 1:18-cv-269

Petitioner,

Dlott, J.

v. Litkovitz, M.J.

SHERIFF, HAMILTON COUNTY, et al., REPORT AND

Respondents. RECOMMENDATION

NOTICE

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy of 

the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the 

proposed findings and recommendations. This period may be extended further by the Court on 

timely motion for an extension. Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report objected 

to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the Report 

and Recommendation is based in whole or in part upon matters occurring on the record at an oral 

hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such 

portions of it as all parties may agree upon, or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the 

assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party’s objections 

WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to make objections in 

accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 

(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

Case: 1:18-cv-00269-SJD-KLL Doc #: 3 Filed: 06/01/18 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 9