Campbell v. State of Nebraska

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Campbell will not be required to pay the $5.00 fee at this time. Ordered by Senior Judge Warren K. Urbom. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(ADB, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
HERBERT LEE CAMPBELL,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF NEBRASKA, County of
Nebraska, City of Nebraska,
Respondent.

4:12CV3174
MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER ON APPLICATION FOR
LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS AND DECLARATION IN
SUPPORT THEREOF

The petitioner, Herbert Lee Campbell, has filed a document called a “Petition for Writ of
Mandamus,” construed as a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (filing no.
1), an Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Declaration in Support Thereof
(filing no. 2), and a copy of his institutional trust account statement (filing no. 3).
Habeas corpus cases attacking the legality of a person’s confinement require the payment of
a $5.00 fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). However, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1)-(2), and after
considering Campbell’s financial status as shown in the records of this court, provisional leave to
proceed in forma pauperis will be granted and Campbell is relieved from paying the fee at this time.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
The Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (filing no. 2) is provisionally
granted and Campbell will not be required to pay the $5.00 fee at this time.
Dated September 19, 2012.
BY THE COURT

____________________________________________
Warren K. Urbom
United States Senior District Judge
*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S. District
Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third
parties or the services or products they provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no
agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for
the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or
directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.