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)

Download PDF
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

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?