Source: http://nm.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180724_0001535.DNM.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 23:17:58+00:00

Document:
V. HORTON (WARDEN), and The Attorney General of the State of New Mexico HECTOR BALDERAS, Respondents.
THIS MATTER is before the Court under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) on the Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by a Person in State Custody. (Doc. 1.) The Court will dismiss the petition without prejudice for failure to comply with Court orders, failure to comply with statutes, and failure to prosecute.
On March 16, 2017, Petitioner Martinez sent a letter to the Court Clerk claiming that he was submitting “(3) payments of 8.65 cents per month of March April and May.” (Doc. 9 at 1.) Attached to the letter was an Inmate's Request for Withdrawal of $33.62 signed by Petitioner Martinez but not by any official of the Guadalupe Correctional Facility. (Id. at 2.) The letter further stated “[d]ue to the Inner Mail System at this facility please credit my U.S. District Court District of New Mexico Civil Docket for No. 16-cv-01280 RB/LAM pending 20% of my additional payment of $500.00 Dollars process fee.” (Id. at 1.) No. payment was included with the March 16, 2017 letter, nor has the Court ever received any payment from Petitioner Martinez.
Petitioner Martinez previously filed several cases that establish a pattern of failure to pay filing fees. In Martinez v. Funk, No. CV 16-00612 KG/LF (D.N.M. 2016), the Court dismissed Petitioner's prisoner civil rights case for failure to pay the initial partial filing fee payment of $6.37 as ordered by the Court. CV 16-00612, Doc. 15 (D.N.M. Jan. 3, 2017). In that case, the Court found that similar contentions regarding the inner prison mail system at Guadalupe County Correctional Facility were unsupported by any factual allegations. Id. at 2. Similarly, in Martinez v. Guadalupe County Correctional Facility, No. CV 17-00606 JCH/WPL (D.N.M. 2017), Martinez was ordered to make an initial partial payment of $48.24 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b) based on his six-month inmate account statement. CV 17-00606, Doc. 6 (D.N.M. June 23, 2017). Martinez moved the Court to reduce the amount of the initial partial payment, and the Court granted a reduction to $15.00 based on his assurance that he could pay $15.00. Id., Docs. 8 (D.N.M. July 5, 2017); 9 (July 15, 2017). However, rather than pay the $15.00, Martinez chose to voluntarily dismiss the proceeding. Id., Doc. 10 (D.N.M. July 25, 2017). Finally, in Martinez v. Geo Group Inc., No. CV 17-01141 JCH/GJF (D.N.M. 2017), Martinez was again ordered to make an initial partial payment of $ 8.09 based on his six-month inmate account statement. CV 17-01141, Doc. 9 (D.N.M. Mar. 26, 2018). Martinez, again, voluntarily withdrew the complaint in order to avoid payment of the initial partial filing fee. Id., Doc. 10 (D.N.M. Apr. 6, 2018).
Martinez filed his Response to the Court's Order to Show Cause on June 20, 2017. (Doc. 14.) In his Response, for the first time, he contends that there is no filing fee for a § 2254 proceeding. (Id. at 1.) He also demands that the Magistrate Judge recuse himself from “further interference.” (Id. at 2.) Contrary to the contentions of Petitioner Martinez, there is a statutorily required filing fee of $5.00 for an application for writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). A prisoner litigant must pay the filing fee as required by § 1914 or comply with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a) and 1915(a), the Court is required collect the $5.00 fee from the Petitioner or authorize Petitioner to proceed without prepayment of the fee. Despite being given multiple opportunities and substantial time to pay the $5.00, Petitioner Martinez has failed to comply with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914 and 1915 and with the Court's December 14, 2016, March 7, 2017, and June 1, 2017 Orders.
Pro se litigants are required to follow the federal statutes, rules of procedure and simple, non-burdensome local rules. See Bradenburg v. Beaman, 632 F.2d 120, 122 (10th Cir. 1980). The Court may dismiss an action under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute, to comply with statutes, the rules of civil procedure, or court orders. See Olsen v. Mapes, 333 F.3d 1199, 1204, n.3 (10th Cir. 2003). Therefore, the Court will dismiss this civil proceeding pursuant to Rule 41(b) for failure to comply with the Court's Orders and failure to prosecute this proceeding.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by a Person in State Custody (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) for failure to comply with Court orders, failure to comply with statutes, and failure to prosecute.

References: § 2254
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1915
 v. 
 § 2254
 § 1914
 § 1914
 § 1915
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2254