Lonix v. Doe, No. 4:2019cv00937 - Document 6 (E.D. Ark. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER adopting 4 Proposed Findings and Recommendations; dismissing without prejudice 1 petition for writ of habeas corpus; directing the Clerk to send Plaintiff a copy of this Order and an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepayin g Fees or Costs; directing Plaintiff to submit the statutory filing fee of $5.00 or file a proper and complete application for leave to proceed IFP, along with a motion to reopen the case, within 30 days of the entry of this Order; and declining to issue a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 1/19/2021. (jbh)

Download PDF
Lonix v. Doe Doc. 6 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION SHANE LONIX, ADC #145216 v. PETITIONER Case No. 4:19-cv-00937-KGB DOE RESPONDENT ORDER Before the Court are the Proposed Findings and Recommendations submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe (Dkt. No. 4). Judge Volpe recommends that petitioner Shane Lonix’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed without prejudice for failure to pay the statutory filing fee or file an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Mr. Lonix has filed an objection to Judge Volpe’s Proposed Findings and Recommendations (Dkt. No. 5). After careful review of the Proposed Findings and Recommendations and Mr. Lonix’s objection thereto, as well as a de novo review of the record, the Court finds no reason to alter or reject Judge Volpe’s conclusion. The Court writes separately to address briefly Mr. Lonix’s objection. In his objection to Judge Volpe’s Proposed Findings and Recommendations, Mr. Lonix directs the Court’s attention to a conditions-of-confinement case before Chief United States District Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. in which he is proceeding in forma pauperis (“IFP”). See Lonix v. Thomas, Case No. 5:19-cv-00341-DPM-JJV. However, Mr. Lonix was required to pay separately the $5.00 statutory filing fee or file an application for leave to proceed IFP to proceed with this action in this Court. That Mr. Lonix previously filed a motion for leave to proceed IFP in another case before another judge is insufficient. Mr. Lonix also contends that his petition for a writ of habeas corpus should have been filed as part of his conditions-of-confinement case before Chief Judge Marshall. However, because habeas corpus and conditions of confinement are sperate Dockets.Justia.com causes of action, Mr. Lonix’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus was properly filed as a separate action. In sum, the Court adopts the Proposed Findings and Recommendations in their entirety as this Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law (Dkt. No. 4). The Court dismisses without prejudice Mr. Lonix’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. No. 1). The Court directs the Clerk of Court to send to Mr. Lonix, together with a copy of this Order, a form AO 240, Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. If Mr. Lonix wishes to continue this case, he must submit the statutory filing fee of $5.00 or file a proper and complete application for leave to proceed IFP, along with a motion to reopen the case, within 30 days of the entry of this Order. Finally, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Mr. Lonix may still apply to the Eighth Circuit for a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). It is so ordered this 19th day of January, 2021. _________________________________ Kristine G. Baker United States District Judge 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.