Prince v. State Of Ohio

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
KELLIE J. PRINCE,
Petitioner,
vs.
STATE OF OHIO,
Respondent.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 2:25-cv-1273
District Judge James L. Graham
Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this Court. 	(Doc. 1). 	On
November 5, 2025, the Court issued a Deficiency Order requiring petitioner to either pay the filing
fee or file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 5). Petitioner was advised that
her failure to comply with the Order “will result in the dismissal of this action for want of
prosecution.” (Id. at PageID 24).
On December 8, 2025, after petitioner failed to comply with the Deficiency Order, the Court
issued an Order requiring petitioner to show cause in writing, within twenty-one (21) days, why
this case should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. (Doc. 15).
On December 29, 2025, because it appeared that petitioner was moved to the Ohio
Reformatory for Women on December 17, 2025, the Court issued another Order, directing the
Clerk of Court to mail a copy of the docket sheet, the December 8, 2025 Order, and the December
29, 2025 Order to petitioner at the Ohio Reformatory for Women. (Doc. 17). Petitioner was again
Ordered to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for want of prosecution within
Case: 2:25-cv-01273-JLG-KLL Doc #: 20 Filed: 02/11/26 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
twenty-one (21) days and advised that failure to comply with the Order “will result in the dismissal
of this action for want of prosecution.” (Id. at PageID 68).
The Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction Offender Details page indicates that
petitioner remains at the Ohio Reformatory for Women.1 However, to date, more than twenty-one
(21) days after the December 29, 2025 Order, petitioner has failed to comply with the Order of the
Court.
“District courts have the inherent power to sua sponte dismiss civil actions for want of
prosecution to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of
cases.” Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 630–631 (1962). Failure of a party to respond to an
order of the Court warrants invocation of the Court’s inherent power in this federal habeas corpus
proceeding. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Rule 11, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in
the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.
Accordingly, this case should be dismissed for petitioner’s failure to comply with the
Court’s December 29, 2025 Order. In re Alea, 286 F.3d 378, 382 (6th Cir. 2002).
It is therefore RECOMMENDED that this matter be DISMISSED for lack of prosecution.
PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy of
the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed
findings and recommendations. This period may be extended further by the Court on timely motion
for an extension. Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report objected to and shall be
accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. 	If the Report and
1 https://appgateway.drc.ohio.gov/OffenderSearch/Search/Details/W116356
Case: 2:25-cv-01273-JLG-KLL Doc #: 20 Filed: 02/11/26 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
Recommendation is based in whole or in part upon matters occurring on the record at an oral
hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such
portions of it as all parties may agree upon, or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the
assigned District Judge otherwise directs. 	A party may respond to another party’s objections
WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. 	Failure to make objections in
accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. 	See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
February 10, 2026
KAREN L. LITKOVITZ
United States Magistrate Judge
Case: 2:25-cv-01273-JLG-KLL Doc #: 20 Filed: 02/11/26 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>