Sandhu v. Davis
Filing
5
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 8/2/2017 GRANTING 3 Motion to Proceed IFP and DISMISSING this action without prejudice. CASE CLOSED. (Henshaw, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
HARWINDER SINGH SANDHU,
12
13
14
No. 2:17-cv-0482 DB P
Petitioner,
v.
ORDER
RON DAVIS,
15
Respondent.
16
17
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas
18
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis
19
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Petitioner has consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge.
20
(ECF No. 4.)
21
Examination of the in forma pauperis affidavit reveals that petitioner is unable to afford
22
the costs of suit. Accordingly, the request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.
23
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
24
The court’s records reveal that petitioner has previously filed an application for a writ of
25
habeas corpus attacking the conviction and sentence challenged in this case. The previous
26
application was filed on October 20, 2014, and was denied on the merits on January 12, 2015.
27
See Sandhu v. Chappell, No. 2:14-cv-2459 KJN (E.D. Cal.). Before petitioner can proceed with
28
the instant application, he must move in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1
1
for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3).
2
Therefore, petitioner’s application must be dismissed without prejudice to its re-filing upon
3
obtaining authorization from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
4
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
5
1.
Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 3) is granted; and
6
2.
This action is dismissed without prejudice.
7
Dated: August 2, 2017
8
9
10
11
12
DLB:9
DLB1/prisoner-habeas/sand0482.succ
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?