Thao v. Swarthouth

Filing 9

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 05/11/10 vacating 7 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The court will rule on plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and screen the case pursuant to Rule 4 of the rules governing 2254 cases in due course. (Plummer, M)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 vs. WARDEN SWARTHOUTH, Respondent. / Petitioner is a prisoner proceeding without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On January 5, 2010, the court found that petitioner had failed to pay the filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) or a request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Petitioner was granted thirty days in which to pay the filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis and was warned that failure to comply would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. The 30-day period expired without petitioner submitting the filing fee, a completed in forma pauperis application, or any other response to the court's order. Accordingly, the undersigned recommended on March 18, 2010 that the action be dismissed without prejudice.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CHARLIE CHONG THAO, Petitioner, No. CIV S-09-3572 EFB P

ORDER

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

However, on April 14, 2010, petitioner submitted a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. The court therefore vacates the Order and Findings and Recommendations dated March 18, 2010. The court will rule on plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and screen the case pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 cases in due course. So ordered. Dated: May 11, 2010.

2