Graham v. Gilley
- Jerry Blackwell
- 0:23-cv-02036
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Graham v. Gilley, Judge Blackwell dismissed William Charles Graham’s case without prejudice for failing to prosecute after he paid neither the filing fee nor sought a waiver.
William Charles Graham’s habeas case was dismissed without prejudice. The order did not resolve the substance of his habeas claim.
What happened
In Graham v. Gilley, William Charles Graham challenged his confinement in a habeas case. He represented himself, and the magistrate judge recommended dismissal because Graham had not paid the filing fee or submitted an application to have the fee waived.
Graham objected, arguing that he had not received earlier notice that this filing problem could lead to dismissal. He also argued that his habeas claim should excuse the filing problem. The court rejected those arguments and found that Graham still had done neither of the required things after being warned.
Judge Jerry W. Blackwell overruled Graham’s objection, accepted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, and dismissed the matter without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute.
The detailed version
- Graham v. Gilley · No. 0:23-cv-02036
- Jerry W. Blackwell
- Aug. 30, 2023
Background
William Charles Graham filed a habeas case against John Gilley, identified as the warden of USP-McCreary. Graham represented himself. United States Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko recommended dismissing the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The recommendation explained that Graham had not paid the filing fee or submitted an application to proceed without paying it. It also addressed the court’s view that Kentucky was the proper venue because Graham was confined there and noted that Graham had previously been notified of similar filing deficiencies.
Graham’s objection
Graham objected to the recommendation. He claimed that the recommendation was the first notice he received that failing to pay the filing fee or submit an application to waive it could lead to dismissal. He cited a case discussing procedural default and argued that any such default should be excused to prevent a miscarriage of justice. He also repeated the substance of his habeas claim.
The court explained that the procedural default discussed in the cited case was different from the filing deficiency at issue here. The court further held that the substance of Graham’s habeas claim did not excuse the requirement to pay the filing fee or apply to have it waived. Graham still had done neither after being informed that the case could be dismissed on that basis.
Ruling
The court reviewed the portions of the recommendation that Graham specifically challenged without deference and reviewed the remaining portions for clear error. It found no legal or factual error requiring rejection of the recommendation and concluded that the unchallenged portions were not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
Judge Jerry W. Blackwell ordered that Graham’s objection be overruled, that the July 31, 2023 Report and Recommendation be accepted, and that the matter be dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The order did not decide the substance of Graham’s habeas claim.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.