Rivera v. Clark

Filing 7

ORDER Granting 5 Motion to Enlarge Time to Satisfy the Filing Fee Requirement and Granting 6 Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 1/6/21. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(dlg)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICKEY V. RIVERA, Case No.: 20cv1831-GPC (RBM) Petitioner, 12 13 14 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME TO SATISFY THE FILING FEE REQUIREMENT AND GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS v. KEN CLARK, Warden, Respondent. 15 16 17 On September 9, 2020, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, constructively 18 filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 (ECF No. 1.) 19 On September 17, 2010, the Court dismissed this action because Petitioner had failed to 20 pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2.) 21 Petitioner was instructed that to have this action reopened he was required to pay the filing 22 fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis by November 17, 2020. (Id. at 1.) 23 Petitioner filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on November 16, 2020. (ECF 24 No. 3.) On November 17, 2020, the Court denied the motion because it did not include the 25 26 27 28 1 Petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the “mailbox” rule which provides that his pro se filings are considered to have been constructively filed as of the date they are handed to prison authorities for mailing to a court. Anthony v. Cambra, 236 F.3d 568, 574-75 (9th Cir. 2000). 1 20cv1831-GPC (RBM) 1 required certified copy of his inmate trust account statement. (ECF No. 4.) The Court 2 extended the time to file a properly supported in forma pauperis application until December 3 17, 2020. (Id. at 2.) On December 16, 2020, Petitioner constructively filed a request for 4 extension of time based on a delay in obtaining trust account statements due to the ongoing 5 pandemic. (ECF No. 5.) Petitioner constructively filed a renewed motion to proceed in 6 forma pauperis on December 18, 2020, accompanied by a certified copy of his trust account 7 statement. (ECF No. 6.) 8 MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 9 For good cause shown, and because Petitioner’s renewed motion to proceed in forma 10 pauperis was constructively filed only one day late, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s 11 motion for an extension of time to satisfy the filing fee requirement. 12 MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 13 Petitioner has $0.75 on account at the California correctional institution in which he 14 is presently confined (ECF No. 6 at 2, 4), and cannot afford the $5.00 filing fee. Thus, the 15 Court GRANTS Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and allows him to 16 prosecute the above-referenced action without being required to prepay fees or costs and 17 without being required to post security. 18 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 19 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s motion for an extension of time to 20 satisfy the filing fee requirement (ECF No. 5) and GRANTS Petitioner’s motion to proceed 21 in forma pauperis (ECF No. 6). 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 Dated: January 6, 2021 25 26 27 28 2 20cv1831-GPC (RBM)

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?