Gipbsin v. Mccumber et al
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 10/7/16 ORDERING that petitioner's motion for clarification (ECF No. 7 ) is GRANTED; Petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 11 ) is DENIED withoutprejudice; The Cle rk of the Court shall provide petitioner with a copy of the in forma pauperis application used by this court; and petitioner shall submit, within 30 days from the date of this order, a fully completedin forma pauperis application. Petitioners failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice.(Dillon, M)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CLARENCE A. GIPBSIN,
No. 2:16-cv-1590 MCE AC P
MCCUMBER, Warden, et al.,
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, is currently incarcerated at California State
Prison-Sacramento, in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
(“CDCR”). Petitioner has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2254 together with a request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
However, petitioner did not sign the portion of the IFP application authorizing prison
officials to assess, collect, and forward to the court the full amount of the filing fees, in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915. See ECF No. 11 at 3. Petitioner will be provided another
opportunity to submit a fully completed application to proceed in forma pauperis.
Petitioner is advised that the Clerk of the Court will be directed to send petitioner a copy
of the in forma pauperis application currently used by this court. Petitioner should complete the
IFP application form and return it to the court. By signing page two of the IFP application form,
petitioner may authorize CDCR to (1) provide a certified copy of petitioner’s trust account
statement directly to the court, and (2) collect and forward to the court the relevant filing fees,
should petitioner’s IFP application be granted.
Petitioner also filed a motion requesting clarification regarding the case number assigned
to this action. ECF No. 7. Petitioner is advised that the habeas petition he filed in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California, Case. No. CV 16-04862 VAP RAO,
has been transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. See
ECF No. 4 (Order of Transfer). When the case was transferred to the Eastern District of
California, it was assigned a new case number (2:16-cv-1590 MCE AC P). Thus, Case No. 2:16-
cv-1590 MCE AC P is the same habeas case that petitioner originally filed in the Central District
of California. Petitioner should continue to include the new case number (2:16-cv-1590 MCE AC
P) on any documents he files in connection with the instant habeas action.
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner’s motion for clarification (ECF No. 7) is granted;
2. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 11) is denied without
3. The Clerk of the Court shall provide petitioner with a copy of the in forma pauperis
application used by this court; and
4. Petitioner shall submit, within thirty days from the date of this order, a fully completed
in forma pauperis application. Petitioner’s failure to comply with this order will result
in a recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ.
DATED: October 7, 2016
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?