Mann, IV v. Heartland Behavioral Healthcare

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
BERTRAM S. MANN, IV,
Plaintiff,
v.
HEARTLAND BEHAVIORAL
HEALTHCARE,
Defendant,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 5:25-CV-01851-CEF
JUDGE CHARLES ESQUE FLEMING
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CARMEN E. HENDERSON
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. 	Introduction
On September 5, 2025, Bertram S. Mann, IV (“Petitioner”) filed a pro se petition for a writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 	(See ECF No. 1). 	When Petitioner filed the
petition, he failed to pay the filing fee or submit a complete and proper application to proceed in
forma pauperis. On October 23, 2025, the undersigned ordered Petitioner to pay the $5 filing fee
or file a proper application within 30 days. (ECF No. 2). The undersigned cautioned Petitioner
that the case may be dismissed if he failed to comply with the order. (Id.). The copy of the order
mailed to Petitioner was returned as undeliverable. (See ECF No. 3). The matter has been referred
to the undersigned for preparation of a report and recommendation. (ECF No. 4).
II. 	Discussion
A court may permit a petitioner to proceed with a civil action without payment of the
required filing fee upon a showing that he is unable to pay the fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). When
a prisoner fails to pay the required fee or apply to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must notify
the prisoner and grant him thirty days to correct the deficiency. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114
Case: 5:25-cv-01851-CEF Doc #: 5 Filed: 12/19/25 1 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>

2
F.3d 601, 605 (6th Cir. 1997). Should a prisoner fail to comply within the time provided, a court
must “presume that the prisoner is not a pauper, assess the full filing fee, and dismiss the case for
want of prosecution.” 	Gravitt v. Tyskzkiewicz, 14 F. App’x 348, 349 (6th Cir. 2001) (affirming
dismissal of habeas petition for want of prosecution where petitioner failed to comply with the
district court’s deficiency order) (quotation omitted); see also Erby v. Kula, 113 F. App’x 74, 76
(6th Cir. 2004) (affirming district court’s dismissal of prisoner’s § 1983 action for want of
prosecution for failing to comply with a deficiency order that clearly identified the documentation
required and expressly warned that failure to comply may result in dismissal).
Here, the October 23 Order contained specific instructions and attached a copy of the
application to proceed in forma pauperis for Petitioner to complete if he was unable to pay the
required filing fee. 	(ECF No. 2). 	More than 30 days have passed, and Petitioner has failed to
either pay the filing fee or return a proper application as ordered. Thus, dismissal is warranted.
The fact that the Court’s October 23 Order was returned as undeliverable does not alter this
conclusion. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b)(2)(C), service by mail to a person’s
last known address is complete upon mailing such that the October 23 Order was properly served
on Petitioner. Petitioner has an affirmative duty to notify the Court of any change in his address
and his failure to do so further justifies dismissal. 	See Washington v. Ohio, No. 5:21-cv-2003,
2024 WL 4664709, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 4, 2024) (“Pro se litigants have the same obligation as
an attorney to notify the court of a change of address.”); Bryant v. Garza, No. 4:22-CV-1907, 2024
WL 1468444, at *5 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 22, 2024) (“Courts within the Northern District of Ohio have
similarly concluded that dismissal is warranted where a habeas petitioner fails to keep the court
updated regarding his change in address.”) (collecting cases), report & recommendation adopted,
2024 WL 1468451 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 15, 2024).
Case: 5:25-cv-01851-CEF Doc #: 5 Filed: 12/19/25 2 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>

3
III. 	Recommendation
Based on Petitioner’s failure to update the Court of his address and comply with the Court’s
October 23 Order, I recommend that the Court dismiss the petition without prejudice.
Dated: December 19, 2025
OBJECTIONS
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk of Courts within
fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this document. Failure to file objections within
the specified time may forfeit the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Berkshire v. Beauvais,
928 F.3d 520, 530–31 (6th Cir. 2019).
Case: 5:25-cv-01851-CEF Doc #: 5 Filed: 12/19/25 3 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>