Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Carter v. State

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division

September 26, 2019

FRANK CARTER, Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent,

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          JEAN C. HAMILTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This 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.

         Background

         Petitioner 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.

         In the 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 documents.”

         Petitioner 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 aggrieved party.”

         Further, 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.”[1] (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.

         On June 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.

         Discussion

         Petitioner 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 proceed.

         The 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.

         More 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).

         Accordingly, 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 entered herewith.

         IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.