UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

KELLY L. KINCER, Case No. 1:18-cv-452
Petitioner,
Black, J.
v. Litkovitz, M.J.
WARDEN, FCC PETERSBURG, REPORT AND
Respondent. RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc.
1). However, petitioner neither paid the $5.00 filing fee nor filed a motion for leave to proceed
without prepayment of fees. Further, petitioner filed an incomplete petition that was not signed
by petitioner, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, and appeared to be missing
pages. (See Doc. 1). Moreover, it appeared that petitioner, who is in custody at the FCC
Petersburg in Hopewell, Virginia, which is located within the Eastern District of Virginia, filed
his petition in the wrong judicial district. The proper venue for a § 2241 petition is the judicial
district having jurisdiction over the petitioner’s custodian. See Wright v. United States Bd. of
Parole, 557 F.2d 74, 77 (6th Cir. 1977). See also Wallace y. United States, No. 97-3016, 1998
WL 45465, at *1 (6th Cir. Jan. 30, 1998).

On July 11, 2018, this Court entered a Deficiency Order. (Doc. 2). In the Order, the
Court directed petitioner to pay the filing fee of $5.00 or submit an application and affidavit to
proceed in forma pauperis within thirty (30) days of the date of the filing of the Order. Further,
the Clerk of Court was directed to return to petitioner his original petition so that petitioner could
submit a completed, signed petition to the Clerk of Court within thirty (30) days of the date of
the Order if he still wished to pursue this matter. Petitioner was also ordered to show cause in

writing within thirty (30) days of the date of the Order why this action should not be transferred


to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Petitioner was advised
that failure to respond to the Order within the requisite 30-day period would result in the case
being dismissed.

To date, more than thirty days after the Court’s July 11, 2018 Order, petitioner has failed
to respond to the 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
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 respond to the Court’s Deficiency Order
issued on July 11, 2018, this case 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: L, vA oP, LE
Karen L. Litkovitz

United States Magistrate Judge


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION
KELLY L. KINCER, Case No. 1:18-cv-452
Petitioner,
Black, J.
v. Litkovitz, M.J.
WARDEN, FCC PETERSBURG,
Respondent.
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).