Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

DOUGLAS WALKER,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00097-MP -GRJ

WALTER A MCNEIL,

Respondent.

_____________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner initiated this case by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Doc. 1. Noting that the petition recited a multitude of

claims pertaining to prison disciplinary convictions spanning a five-year period, and also

asserted claims that were not cognizable in a habeas corpus proceeding, the Court

directed Petitioner to file an amended petition and a motion for leave to proceed as a

pauper by July 2, 2010. Doc. 4. The Clerk provided Petitioner with the necessary 1

habeas and IFP forms. Petitioner moved for an extension of time, and asserted that

Respondent was impeding his access to court in various respects, including by denying

him paper and copying services. Doc. 5. The Court granted Petitioner an extension of

time to submit an amended petition, reminded Petitioner that he was only required to

complete the form as to one disciplinary claim, and waived the requirement to submit

service copies. Doc. 6. The Court ordered Petitioner to submit an amended petition on

The Court also noted that although some of Petitioner’s non-habeas claims 1

might be cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Petitioner would not be permitted to

pursue such claims in forma pauperis because he was subject to the three-strikes bar

of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Page 2 of 3

or before August 7, 2010, failing which the case would be dismissed for failure to

prosecute and failure to comply with an order of the Court. Id.

As of this date, Petitioner has failed to file an amended habeas corpus petition.

Petitioner did file a motion for leave to proceed as a pauper, Doc. 7, and an eight-page

motion for appointment of counsel, Doc. 8. In his motion for appointment of counsel, 2

Petitioner contends that he “sent his only record remaining of his Petition, filed in this

instant, to the prison library for copying service on July 1, 2010. As of filing this Motion,

Petitioner has not received his Petition or requested copies back. Without a copy of his

Petition Petitioner is unable to provide sufficient facts in his Amended Petition to state a

cause of action to maintain this case at bar.”

Petitioner’s motion for counsel does not establish any cause for his failure to

comply with the Court’s order to file an amended petition challenging one of the

disciplinary convictions mentioned in the original petition. The Court provided Petitioner

with the necessary form and waived the requirement that Petitioner provide service

copies. Petitioner was able to prepare and file an eight-page motion, Doc. 8, arguing

for appointment of counsel. The Court is satisfied that Petitioner, an experienced

prison litigator, would not have difficulty completing the Court’s habeas corpus petition

form with information sufficient to explain the basis for his challenge to a prison

disciplinary conviction, if he in fact has a cognizable basis for such a claim.

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute and

The Court has entered a separate order on the pending motions. 2

Case No: 1:10-cv-00097-MP -GRJ
Page 3 of 3

failure to obey an order of the Court.

IN CHAMBERS at Gainesville, Florida, this 12 day of January 2011. th

s/Gary R. Jones

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations within 14 days after being served with a copy of this report and

recommendation. A party may respond to another party’s objections within 14

days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections

limits the scope of review of proposed factual findings and recommendations.

Case No: 1:10-cv-00097-MP -GRJ