UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

THOMPSON MARA MAGINDE, Case No. 1:17-cv-736
Petitioner,
Black, J.
v. Litkovitz, M.J.
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al., REPORT AND
Respondents. RECOMMENDATION

On November 2, 2017, petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1). However, petitioner did not pay the filing fee or file a motion for
leave to proceed without prepayment of fees.

On November 6, 2017, the Court issued a Deficiency Order requiring petitioner to pay
the full $5.00 filing fee or to submit a completed Application and Affidavit By Incarcerated
Person to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees form within thirty (30) days. (See Doc. 2).
Petitioner was further advised that “[i]f petitioner fails to comply with this Deficiency Order
within the requisite 30-day period, this case shall be dismissed for lack of prosecution.” (Id. at
PagelD 7). On November 21, 2017, the Deficiency Order was returned to the Court marked
“return to sender not deliverable unable to forward.” (Doc. 3).

On November 28, 2017, the Court issued a second Deficiency Order, noting that the
November 6, 2017 Order was returned as undeliverable and directing the Clerk of Court to
attempt to resend the Deficiency Order to petitioner at both the Butler County Jail and Morrow
County Jail addresses.'! On December 8, 2017 and December 11, 2017, the second Deficiency

Order was returned to the Court from both locations, again marked as undeliverable. (See Doc.

' When petitioner initiated this action, petitioner indicated that he was detained at the Butler County Jail in
Hamilton, Ohio. (See Doc. 1). In issuing the November 6, 2017 Deficiency Order, the Court noted that the online
jail rosters for Butler County and the Morrow County Jails indicated that petitioner was at the Morrow County Jail.
(See Doc. 2). The Clerk of Court was directed to send the Deficiency Order to petitioner at the Morrow County Jail.
(id.). In issuing the November 28, 2017 Order, the Court noted that petitioner was not on the online jail rosters for
either Butler County Jail or Morrow County Jail. (See Doc. 5).


5, 6).

To date, more than thirty days after the Court’s November 6, 2017 Order, petitioner has
failed to respond to the Order or provide the Court with an updated mailing address.

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). A pro se litigant has an
affirmative duty to diligently pursue the prosecution of his cause of action, see Jourdan v. Jabe,
951 F.2d 108, 109 (6th Cir. 1991), as well as a duty to supply the Court with notice of any and
all changes in his address. See Barber v. Runyon, No. 93-6318, 1994 WL 163765, at *1 (6th Cir.
May 2, 1994) (citing Pena v. Seguros La Commercial, S.A., 770 F.2d 811, 815 (9th Cir. 1985)).
Failure of a party to respond to an order of the Court warrants invocation of the Court’s inherent
power in this federal habeas 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 Order issued on November
6, 2017 or provide the Court with a notice of change of address, petitioner’s petition for a writ of
habeas corpus (Doc. 1) should be DISMISSED for lack of prosecution.

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.

pe BSE arta pablo
Karen L. Litkovitz

United States Magistrate Judge


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION
THOMPSON MARA MAGINDE, Case No. 1:17-cv-736
Petitioner,
Black, J.
v. Litkovitz, M.J.
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al.,
Respondents.
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).