Salagubang v. Grounds
Filing
3
ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 3/1/11. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/3/2011)
Salagubang v. Grounds
Doc. 3
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 v.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ARNEL F. SALAGUBANG, Petitioner, No. C 11-0027 SBA (PR) ORDER OF DISMISSAL
RANDY GROUNDS, Warden, Respondent. /
This action was opened in error when the Court received a habeas petition form from Petitioner and a $5.00 filing fee that were intended to be filed in a previously-filed action -- Case No. C 10-5870 SBA (PR). Petitioner filed a petition in Case No. C 10-5870 SBA (PR); however, he did not pay the filing fee or file a completed prisoner's in forma pauperis application in that action. He was sent a notice in Case No. C 10-5870 SBA (PR) directing him to either pay the filing fee or file a completed prisoner's in forma pauperis application. The Clerk sent Petitioner a blank in forma pauperis application and told him that he must pay the fee or return the completed application within thirty days or his action would be dismissed. On January 5, 2011, Petitioner filed a Motion for an Extension of Time to Pay the Filing Fee in Case No. 10-5870 SBA (pr). On January 12, 2011, Petitioner filed a "Notice of Error in Filing; Request Dismissal of Petition," also in Case No. 105870 SBA (pr). Petitioner filed a duplicate copy of his habeas petition and the filing fee; however, he did not indicate that they were to be filed in Case No. C 10-5870 SBA (PR). Therefore, as mentioned above, a new action was opened. Petitioner currently has two separate habeas actions pending, although he meant to file only one action. Accordingly, the Clerk is directed to remove the duplicate copy of his petition form (docket no. 1) and his $5.00 filing fee from this action. The Clerk is then directed to file them in his previously-filed action, Case No. C 10-5870 SBA (PR). The Clerk is further directed to mark the duplicate copy of his petition form and the $5.00 filing fee as filed on the dates they were received
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
by the Court. Because the $5.00 filing fee has been paid, Petitioner's Motion for an Extension of Time to Pay the Filing Fee (docket no. 4 in Case No. 10-5870 SBA (pr)) is TERMINATED as moot. The Court will review his petition in a separate written Order in Case No. C 10-5870 SBA (PR). The present action is DISMISSED because it was opened in error. No filing fee is due. The Clerk shall close the file. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: __________3/1/11___________________ ________________________________ SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG United States District Judge
2
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 G:\PRO-SE\SBA\HC.11\Salagubang5870.Dism-FILEDinERROR.wpd 3 Arnel F. Salagubang E-61582 Salinas Valley State Prison P.O. Box 689 Soledad, CA 93960-0689 Dated: March 3, 2011 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. That on March 3, 2011, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. v. RANDY GROUNDS et al, Defendant. / ARNEL SALAGUBANG, Case Number: CV11-00027 SBA Plaintiff, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 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?