Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Deion Griffin, a county detainee proceeding without counsel, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on February 23, 2026. The action was referred to a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302(c)(17). On March 10, 2026, the magistrate judge ordered Griffin either to submit a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee within thirty days. Griffin did not respond within that period.
On September 10, 2026, the magistrate judge issued an order to show cause, giving Griffin fourteen days to explain in writing why the action should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the court's order. The order warned that nonresponse would produce a recommendation of dismissal. Although the order was served at Griffin's address of record, he again did not respond. The magistrate judge consequently issued findings and recommendations on September 25, 2026, recommending dismissal without prejudice.
The findings and recommendations were served at Griffin's address of record and advised that objections were due within fourteen days after service. Griffin filed no objections and did not otherwise communicate with the court before the objection period expired. A footnote in the district judge's order adds that both the show-cause order and the findings and recommendations were returned by the Postal Service marked undeliverable, unable to forward, and not in custody. The court observed that Griffin therefore also appeared not to have kept it informed of any address change as required by the local rules.
The Court’s Holding
District Judge Dale A. Drozd conducted de novo review under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). After reviewing the entire file, the court concluded that the findings and recommendations were supported by the record and proper analysis. It adopted the September 25 findings and recommendations in full and dismissed the action without prejudice because Griffin had failed to comply with court orders and failed to prosecute. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case. The order did not adjudicate the merits of any constitutional claim asserted in the petition.
The court separately declined to issue a certificate of appealability. It cited 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), which permits a certificate only upon a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b), which requires the court either to identify issues satisfying that standard or explain why a certificate should not issue. Because the dismissal rested on procedural grounds, the court applied the two-part standard from Slack v. McDaniel: whether reasonable jurists could debate the correctness of the procedural ruling and whether they could debate whether the petition states a valid constitutional claim.
Applying that standard, the court concluded that reasonable jurists would not find its dismissal without prejudice debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to proceed further. The operative disposition therefore consisted of adoption of the findings and recommendations, dismissal without prejudice, closure of the case, and denial of a certificate of appealability. The without-prejudice character of the dismissal distinguishes it from a merits determination, while the certificate ruling addresses the availability of appellate review rather than altering the basis for dismissal.
Key Takeaways
- A Section 2254 petitioner who does not comply with orders concerning the filing fee or in forma pauperis application, and who then ignores a show-cause order, risks dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders.
- The district judge reviewed the unopposed findings and recommendations de novo and adopted them only after concluding that the record and analysis supported the recommended disposition.
- Service at the address of record did not produce a response, and returned mail led the court to note an apparent failure to update that address as required by the local rules.
- For a procedural dismissal, Slack v. McDaniel requires consideration of both the debatability of the procedural ruling and the debatability of whether the petition states a valid constitutional claim before a certificate of appealability may issue.
- The dismissal was without prejudice and did not resolve the merits of Griffin's underlying habeas claims, but the court nevertheless declined to certify an appeal.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates the procedural consequences of prolonged nonparticipation in a federal habeas action, even for a detainee proceeding pro se. The magistrate judge first provided an opportunity to cure the filing-fee deficiency and later issued an express warning through an order to show cause. Only after Griffin failed to respond to both directives, and allowed the objection period to pass, did the district court adopt the recommendation and dismiss the case.
The certificate-of-appealability discussion also shows that a without-prejudice procedural dismissal requires its own appellate-gatekeeping analysis. Rather than treating the absence of a merits ruling as dispositive, the court applied Slack's procedural-dismissal framework and explained why reasonable jurists would not debate the dismissal. The returned-mail observations further underscore the practical importance of maintaining a current address of record, although the operative dismissal rested on failure to prosecute and noncompliance with court orders.