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)

Download PDF
-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

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?