CROW v. MCNEIL

Filing 3

ORDER re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by THOMAS FLOYD CROW: Clerk directed to forward to Petitioner an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Petitioner shall have until 1/21/2011, to either file an ap plication for leave to proceed IFP or pay the $5.00 filing fee, and provide the Court with an additional service copy of the Petition. (Fee or Motion for IFP due by 1/21/2011.). Signed by MAGISTRATE JUDGE GARY R JONES on 12/22/2010. (Copy of order w/Motion for IFP forwarded to Petitioner.) (jws)

-GRJ CROW v. MCNEIL

Doc. 3

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PANAMA CITY DIVISION THOMAS FLOYD CROW, Petitioner, v. W ALTER MCNEIL, Respondent. _____________________________/ CASE NO. 5:10-cv-00314-SPM -GRJ

ORDER This matter is before the Court on Doc. 1, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The docket does not reflect that Petitioner has either paid the $5.00 filing fee or filed a motion for leave to proceed as a pauper. Further consideration of the petition will be deferred until the fee is paid or Petitioner is granted leave to proceed as a pauper. Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 1. That the Clerk shall forward to Petitioner an application for leave to proceed as a pauper; That Petitioner shall have until January 21, 2011, to either file an application for leave to proceed as a pauper or to pay the $5.00 filing fee, and to provide the Court with an additional service copy of the Petition; That failure to comply with this order as instructed, or to show cause as to why Petitioner is unable to comply, may result in the dismissal

2.

3.

Dockets.Justia.com

Page 2 of 2

of this case for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with an order of this court.1 DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of December 2010.

s/Gary R. Jones
GARY R. JONES United States Magistrate Judge

Petitioner should note that if he fails to respond to this Order and this case is dismissed, any subsequently-filed habeas petition in this Court challenging the same conviction may be barred by the one-year limitation period for filing a habeas petition in the federal courts. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Although the one-year period is tolled during the time in which a properly filed application for state post- conviction relief is pending, see Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4, 8-9 (2000) (defining when an application is "properly filed" under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2)), the time in which a federal habeas petition is pending does not toll the one-year limitation period. See Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167 (2001) (holding that an application for federal habeas corpus review does not toll the one-year limitation period under § 2244(d)(2)).
Case No: 5:10-cv-00314-SPM -GRJ

1