Scott v. Lewis

Filing 14

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; RE-OPENING CASE. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 1/11/12. (Attachments: # 1 certificate of mailing)(mpb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/12/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 ERIC D. SCOTT, 13 14 15 Petitioner, v. WARDEN G.D. LEWIS, 16 Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. C 11-3128 LHK (PR) ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; REOPENING CASE 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On October 21, 2011, the Court issued an order to show cause, 19 and ordered Petitioner to pay the filing fee within thirty days. On December 6, 2011, having 20 received no indication of payment from Petitioner, the Court dismissed the action and entered 21 judgment. 22 On December 30, 2011, the Clerk entered into the docket a letter filed by Petitioner on 23 December 23, 2011. In that letter, Petitioner disputes the dismissal, arguing that he paid the 24 filing fee within the Court-ordered deadline. Petitioner included a copy of the receipt he 25 received confirming that he paid the required filing fee on November 18, 2011. The Court 26 construes Petitioner’s letter as a motion for reconsideration. So construed, the motion is 27 GRANTED. The Clerk shall RE-OPEN this case. 28 Order Granting Motion for Reconsideration; Re-Opening Case P:\pro-se\sj.lhk\hc.11\Scott525recon 1 Petitioner’s traverse to Respondent’s answer shall be filed no later than thirty days from 2 the filing date of this order. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 1/11/12 DATED: 4 LUCY H. KOH United States District Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Order Granting Motion for Reconsideration; Re-Opening Case 2 P:\pro-se\sj.lhk\hc.11\Scott525recon

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?