In Perry v. Pearson (135 Ill. 218) one director sought to set aside a sale to a codirector, and the court refused relief for the reason, among others, that the situation of the parties was equal, but the court said (p. 236): "It would certainly be most inequitable to permit the directors of a corporation to so manage its business or to so deal with its property as to lessen the value of its stock for the purpose of purchasing such stock for themselves at a low figure.Summary of this case from Von Au v. Magenheimer
Civil Action No. 3:08CV833.
April 6, 2009
Petitioner, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, submitted a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, all pro se petitions for writs of habeas corpora must be filed on a set of standardized forms. See E.D. Va. Loc. Civ. R. 83.4(A). Petitioner's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition was not filed on the appropriate standardized form. On February 20, 2009, the Clerk mailed to Petitioner the standardized form for filing a § 2254 petition. By Memorandum Order entered on February 20, 2009, the Court directed Petitioner to complete and return the form within fifteen (15) days of the date of entry thereof. The Court warned Petitioner that the failure to complete and return the form in a timely manner would result in dismissal of the action. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). More than fifteen (15) days have elapsed since the entry of the February 20, 2009 Memorandum Order, and Petitioner has not completed and returned the standardized form. Accordingly, the action will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with the Order of the Court.
An appropriate Order shall issue.