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)

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)