Harrison v. Holland

Filing 6

ORDER OF DISMISSAL (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 10/10/2013) (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/10/2013: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (tfS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

JAMES D. HARRISON,

10
11
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

12

No. C 13-3004 SI (pr)

Petitioner,

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

v.
HOLLAND, warden,

13

Respondent.
/

14
15

James D. Harrison, a prisoner at the California Correctional Institute in Tehachapi, filed

16

a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition was far

17

from complete in that it was unsigned and consisted of only a cover page and a second page that

18

appears to be a list of books. Petitioner was informed that he needed to file a petition within 28

19

days or the action would be dismissed. He also was sent a notice that he had not paid the filing

20

fee or applied for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and was given 28 days to either pay the

21

fee or file the application or the action would be dismissed. Petitioner filed an in forma pauperis

22

application but did not bother to file a completed petition for writ of habeas corpus. This action

23

therefore is DISMISSED without prejudice for failing to file a signed petition for writ of habeas

24

corpus.

25

Due to petitioner’s failure to file a completed petition for writ of habeas corpus, the court

26

is unsure whether he is once again attempting to challenge his 1997 conviction from the

27

Alameda County Superior Court. As the court explained in dismissing an earlier petition from

28

this same prisoner, he cannot file a new petition to challenge his 1997 conviction unless he first

1

obtains from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit an order authorizing this

2

court to consider the petition, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), because his first habeas petition

3

challenging that conviction, Harrison v. Prunty, Case No. C 06-2220 SI, was dismissed as

4

untimely. See Order of Dismissal in Harrison v. Louis, Case No. 11-931 SI.

5

Petitioner’s in forma pauperis application is GRANTED. (Docket # 2 and # 5.)

6

The clerk shall close the file.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

DATED: October 10, 2013
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2