Dalton v. USA

Filing 1

ORDER. Signed by Judge Illston on 7/10/09. (ts, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/13/2009)

Download PDF
Case3:96-cr-00276-SI Document672 Filed07/10/09 Page1 of 1 1 2 3 4 5 JOHN DALTON, 6 Defendant/Petitioner, 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: July 10, 2009 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge John Dalton has once again moved for this Court to set aside his criminal conviction. This motion is a direct attack on his now final criminal conviction and is properly brought through a petition for habeas corpus. Mr. Dalton is referred to the Court's January 26, 2009 Order, at 3 [Docket No. 659] for instructions on obtaining an order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit authorizing this Court to consider this, the most recent of his successive habeas petitions. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice to Mr. Dalton filing a petition in this Court after he obtains the necessary order from the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Mr. Dalton has also filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis. Petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is DENIED because he fails to make the prima facie showing required under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 for authorization to file a successive habeas petition. See Docket No. 650. This denial is without prejudice to Mr. Dalton's filing a request in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5). The clerk shall docket Mr. Dalton's letter and habeas petition dated June 28, 2009. IT IS SO ORDERED. v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff/Respondent. / ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT AND TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS No. C 02-4949 SI No. CR 96-0276 SI IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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?