Beacham v. Stearns County Courts/Jail
- David Schultz
- 0:20-cv-02490
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
Beacham v. Stearns County Courts/Jail: the court dismissed the habeas case without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
Cortez Beacham’s habeas action was dismissed without prejudice; the court did not decide the merits of his petition.
What happened
In Beacham v. Stearns County Courts/Jail, Cortez Beacham filed a petition challenging his custody, but he did not pay the required $5 filing fee or submit an application to proceed without paying it.
The court found that Beacham had not taken further action after filing his petition, even after the clerk gave him 15 days to pay or apply for a fee waiver. It therefore dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute, meaning the dismissal did not bar refiling.
The court adopted Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz’s recommendation, but the order does not identify the United States District Judge by name.
The detailed version
- Beacham v. Stearns County Courts/Jail · No. 0:20-cv-02490
- David T. Schultz
- Mar. 25, 2021
Background
Cortez Beacham filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a procedure used to challenge certain forms of custody, on December 7, 2020. The clerk notified him that the court had not received the required $5 filing fee or an application to proceed without prepaying fees and costs. The clerk gave him 15 days to submit one of those items and warned that the case would be dismissed without prejudice if he did not do so.
The fee and application were not received within the 15-day period. Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz recommended dismissing the action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. Beacham did not object to the recommendation and had not otherwise filed anything after submitting his petition. The order also notes that he filed two related cases, in which he responded to similar recommendations, but he did not respond in this case.
Court’s Analysis
Rule 41(b) allows a court to dismiss an action when a party fails to prosecute it or comply with court orders. The court explained that dismissal for this reason is appropriate when there is a clear record of delay or defiant conduct. It found that Beacham failed to prosecute because he did not pay the filing fee, submit the required application, or take other action after filing his petition, despite the clerk’s notice.
Disposition
The court adopted the report and recommendation and dismissed the action without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The court did not decide the substance of Beacham’s habeas petition.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.