United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
C. HAMILTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court on its own motion. On June 27,
2019, petitioner was ordered to file an amended petition
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on a Court form. (Docket
No. 4). Petitioner was given thirty days in which to comply.
The Court, however, has not received an amended petition.
Therefore, for the reasons discussed below, this action will
be dismissed without prejudice.
filed a document with the Court on February 19, 2019 that was
construed as a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Docket No. 1). The petition was
handwritten and not on a Court form. Petitioner also
neglected to file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis or
pay the filing fee.
petition, petitioner stated that in 2007, he was
“Interstate Compacted to the State of Missouri from the
State of Texas.” (Docket No. 1 at 1). Since that time,
he has been “clean with no infractions.” He
alleged that it “appears that the State of Texas has
apparently, with the [aid] of the State of Missouri, cemented
the null and void trial court judgment which is based on
intentional bad faith fraud on the court and falsification of
claimed that he was being “held in penal slavery
outside of all law.” He asserted that his case was
“interstate compacted” to the State of Missouri
as a knowing and intentional act “in furtherance of
[continuing] this travesty of justice in violation of all
constitutional norms.” Petitioner noted that “a
void judgment may be raised at any time in any court by the
petitioner stated that the “authorities” falsely
labeled him as a sex offender, and that the “false
label of sex offender has confined [him] to a true life
sentence until death.” (Docket No. 1 at 2). Plaintiff
explained that the purportedly-false label effects the type
of employment he might seek, as well as the right to vote. As
such, he requested that an “investigation, inquiry and
review” be undertaken “into whether or not the
false charge reflected in [his] parole file was placed there
by the State of Missouri or Texas and whether or not it is
the reason why it appears that [he] must be on lifetime
parole.” He also asked that this
“correspondence” be treated as a federal writ of
habeas corpus, as he had “no other way of presenting
these issues” to the Court.
27, 2019, petitioner was ordered to file an amended petition
on a Court form. He was also directed to either file a motion
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis or to pay the filing
fee. In order to aid petitioner, the Clerk of Court was
directed to send him a copy of the Court’s 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 form and a copy of the Court’s motion to
proceed in forma pauperis form. Petitioner was given thirty
days in which to comply with the order. He was advised that
failure to comply would result in the dismissal of this
action without prejudice and without further notice.
has filed a document that he asks to be treated as a petition
for writ of habeas corpus and which the Court has construed
as a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254. As previously noted in the Court’s order
of June 27, 2019, the petition is deficient because it is not
on a Court form. See E.D. Mo. L.R. 45 - 2.06(A)
(“All actions brought by pro se plaintiffs or
petitioners should be filed on Court-provided forms”).
Because the petition is not on a Court form, it is missing
vital information necessary for petitioner’s action to
Court previously directed the Clerk of Court to send
petitioner a § 2254 form. The Court directed petitioner
to fill out the form in its entirety, specifically advising
him to provide information relating to the judgment that he
is attacking. He was also ordered to either file a motion to
proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee. Petitioner
was given thirty days in which to comply, and was warned that
failure to comply would result in the dismissal of his case
without prejudice and without further notice.
than thirty days have elapsed, and petitioner has failed to
comply with the Court’s order of June 27, 2019.
Specifically, he has not filed an amended petition. He has
also failed to either file a motion to proceed in forma
pauperis or pay the filing fee. As a result, this action must
be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s
order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); and Brown v.
Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 803 (8th Cir. 1986)
(stating that district court may dismiss a pro se
litigant’s action for failure to comply with a court
order on its own initiative).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is
DISMISSED without prejudice. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). A separate order of dismissal will be
IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of