Lang v. Grounds

Filing 5

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Vaughn R Walker on 8/25/2010. (Attachments: # 1 proof of service)(cgk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/25/2010)

Download PDF
Lang v. Grounds Doc. 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 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 On July 6, 2010, petitioner filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 USC 2254 challenging the governor's February 20, 2009 reversal of the September 25, 2008 decision of the California Board of Parole Hearings finding petitioner suitable for parole. Doc #1 at 34. The court notified petitioner in writing at v RANDY GROUNDS, Warden, Respondent. / LAURENCE D LANG, Petitioner, ORDER OF DISMISSAL No C-10-2955 VRW (PR) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA that time that the action was deficient because he did not pay the requisite $ 5.00 filing fee or, instead, submit a signed and completed court-approved in forma pauperis application, including a completed certificate of funds in his prison account and a copy of his prison trust account statement for the last six months. USC 1915(a)(2). See 28 Petitioner was advised that failure to file the Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 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 requested items within thirty days would result in dismissal of the action. Doc #4. Almost fifty days have elapsed since petitioner was notified of his filing deficiency; however, he has not provided the court with the requisite items, or sought an extension of time to do so. The action, therefore, is DISMISSED without prejudice. The clerk shall terminate all pending motions as moot and close the file. IT IS SO ORDERED. VAUGHN R WALKER United States District Chief Judge G:\PRO-SE\VRW\HC.10\Lang-10-2955-dismiss-ifp deficiency.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?