Bolden v. USA
ORDER re 1 Pro Se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Lewis Bolden: The petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge Linda R Reade on 3/3/2016 (copy w/NEF mailed to Plt). (skm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
This matter appears before the court on the petitioner’s application for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (docket no. 1). The clerk’s office filed such
application on February 19, 2016. The petitioner did not submit the required filing fee or
an application to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (requiring $400.00
filing fee for civil actions, except that on application for a writ of habeas corpus the filing
fee is $5.00); 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (explaining in forma pauperis proceedings). Thus, he did
not properly commence this action. Further, the court previously explained to the
petitioner that he needed to exhaust his administrative remedies within the Federal Bureau
of Prisons1 and, if necessary, then file a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
in the district where he is confined, which is the Middle District of Florida, not the
Northern District of Iowa. Accordingly, the petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas
The court notes that the petitioner states that he did not exhaust his administrative
remedies based on an assertion made by a docketing clerk within the clerk’s office. But,
the petitioner wrongly identified himself when he spelled his name “Louis Boldon” or
“Louis L. Boldon” and, consequently, his case could not be found. And, in the instant
case, the petitioner again signed his pleading by using “Louis Boldon.”
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (docket no. 1) is dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 3rd day of March, 2016.
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?