McCoy v. State Of Illinois et al

Filing 6

WRITTEN Opinion: For the reasons stated below, petitioner's motion for extension of time to file motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 5 is granted. Based on petitioner's representations, we grant petitioner until 10/22/2010 to e ither pay the filing fee or file a properly completed in forma pauperis application form. If petitioner pays the filing fee or files a properly completed in forma pauperis application form by 10/22/2010, the instant action will be reinstated. Howev er, petitioner is warned that failure to pay the filing fee or file a properly completed in forma pauperis application form by 10/22/2010 will result in the denial of reinstatement of the instant action. Signed by the Honorable Samuel Der-Yeghiayan on 9/23/2010. (For further details see order)(vmj, )

Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge

Samuel Der-Yeghiayan 10 C 4766

Sitting Judge if Other than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER CASE TITLE
DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

DATE

9/23/2010

Martin McCoy (R-60669) vs. State Of Illinois

For the reasons stated below, Petitioner's motion for extension of time to file motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [5] is granted. Based on Petitioner's representations, we grant Petitioner until October 22, 2010 to either pay the filing fee or file a properly completed in forma pauperis application form. If Petitioner pays the filing fee or files a properly completed in forma pauperis application form by October 22, 2010, the instant action will be reinstated. However, Petitioner is warned that failure to pay the filing fee or file a properly completed in forma pauperis application form by October 22, 2010 will result in the denial of reinstatement of the instant action. O[ For further details see text below.]
Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT This matter is before the court on Petitioner Martin McCoy's (McCoy) request for an extension of time to file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. On July 29, 2010, McCoy filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. However, McCoy neither paid the filing fee nor filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. In an order dated August 4, 2010, we notified McCoy that he must either pay the filing fee or file an accurately and properly completed in forma pauperis application form by August 24, 2010. We also warned McCoy that if he failed to either pay the filing fee or file an accurately and properly completed in forma pauperis application form by August 24, 2010, this action would be dismissed. The deadline passed, and McCoy neither paid the filing fee nor filed an in forma pauperis application form. Therefore, on August 25, 2010, we dismissed the instant action. The docket reflects that on August 27, 2010, McCoy filed a letter requesting an extension of time to file an in forma pauperis application form. Since McCoy is a pro se petitioner, his letter to the court will be construed liberally as a motion. Based on McCoy's representations, we grant McCoy until October 22, 2010 to either pay the filing fee or file a properly completed in forma pauperis application form. If McCoy pays the filing fee or files a properly completed in forma pauperis application form by October 22, 2010, the
10C4766 Martin McCoy (R-60669) vs. State Of Illinois

Page 1 of 2

STATEMENT instant action will be reinstated. However, McCoy is warned that failure to pay the filing fee or file a properly completed in forma pauperis application form by October 22, 2010 will result in the denial of reinstatement of the instant action.

10C4766 Martin McCoy (R-60669) vs. State Of Illinois

Page 2 of 2