Andersen v. Hornbeck

Filing 5

ORDER of Dismissal. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 3/11/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/11/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

JADE E. ANDERSON,

9

Plaintiff,
v.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

TINA HORNBECK; et al.,

12

No. C-12-6305 EMC (pr)

Defendants.
___________________________________/

13
14

This pro se civil action was filed on December 12, 2012, at which time the Court notified

15

Plaintiff in writing that the action was deficient due to the failure to pay the filing fee or furnish a

16

completed and signed court-approved in forma pauperis application. Specifically, Plaintiff was

17

informed that her in forma pauperis application was deficient in that it did not have a certificate of

18

funds signed by a prison official and did not have a copy of her prisoner trust account statement for

19

the last six months. Plaintiff was advised that failure to pay the fee or file the application materials

20

within thirty days would result in dismissal of the action. Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee or file a

21

completed in forma pauperis application, and the deadline by which to do so has passed. The in

22

forma pauperis application that she submitted with his complaint is DENIED because it did not

23

include the certificate of funds and inmate trust account statement as required by 28 U.S.C. §

24

1915(a). (Docket # 3.) This action is DISMISSED for failure to pay the filing fee or submit a

25

completed in forma pauperis application.

26

This action is dismissed for the separate and additional reason that a prisoner may not bring a

27

civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to challenge a state court conviction. In her complaint,

28

Plaintiff alleges that there were constitutional violations at her state criminal trial, asks for her case

1

to be reviewed and seeks a sentence reduction. A petition for writ of habeas corpus is the exclusive

2

method by which Plaintiff may challenge her state court conviction or seek speedier release from

3

custody. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). Normally the court would dismiss the

4

civil rights complaint without prejudice to Plaintiff filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus,

5

Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 1995), but that is not necessary here

6

because Plaintiff already filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus that is pending in this Court,

7

Anderson v. Hornbeck, C 10-155 SI.

8

The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.

9
IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

Dated: March 11, 2013

13
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2