King v. Evans

Filing 7

ORDER DISMISSING CASE; DENYING PENDING MOTIONS. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 9/21/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/23/2009)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MARCHAN KING, Petitioner, vs. MIKE EVANS, Respondent. / No. C 09-2638 WHA (PR) ORDER OF DISMISSAL; DENYING PENDING MOTIONS (Docket Nos. 2 & 5) This pro se habeas action was filed on June 15, 2009. On that same day the court notified petitioner that his application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") was deficient because he had provided neither a copy of his inmate trust account nor a certificate of funds in his inmate account. A copy of the court's form for applications to proceed in forma pauperis was provided with the notice, along with a return envelope. On August 6, 2009, petitioner's motion for an extension of time to file the inmate account trust statement in support of IFP application was granted. Petitioner was cautioned that if he did not submit an adequate statement within thirty days, the case would be dismissed. No statement, or response, has been received. This case is therefore DISMISSED without prejudice to filing a new petition in which petitioner either pays the filing fee or files a completed IFP application. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Dated: In light of this dismissal, the defective IFP application (docket number 5) and the motion to stay this case pending exhaustion (docket number 2) are DENIED. The clerk shall close the file. IT IS SO ORDERED. September 21 , 2009. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 G:\PRO-SE\WHA\HC.09\KING2638.DSM-IFP.wpd 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?