Eagle Boy v. State of Nebraska

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Petitioner's application to proceed IFP (Filing No. 7 ) is denied. Petitioner's Motion for Information (Filing No. 6 ) is granted to the extent that it is consistent with this Memorandum and Order. Petitioner is granted until September 30, 2013, to pay the $5.00 filing fee. Petitioner is warned that if the fee is not paid as required, the court may dismiss this case without further notice. The Clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case m anagement deadline in this case using the following text: September 30, 2013: deadline forPetitioner to pay $5.00 filing fee. No further review of this case will take place until the filing fee is paid. Ordered by Chief Judge Laurie Smith Camp. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(AOA)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA CHARLES R. EAGLE BOY, Petitioner, v. STATE OF NEBRASKA, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 4:13CV3120 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the court on Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) (Filing No. 7) and Motion for Information (Filing No. 6). 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). The court has reviewed the application to proceed IFP. Petitioner’s trust account information shows that Petitioner’s account contained an average monthly balance of $100 or more for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of the petition. (Filing No. 8.) Thus, the court concludes that Petitioner must be required to pay the $5.00 filing fee because Petitioner has the financial ability to do so. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). No further review of this case will take place until the fee is paid. In Petitioner’s Motion for Information, he argues that he directed his institution to pay the filing fee in this matter out of the funds available in his inmate trust account, and that his inmate trust account statement reflects that a $5.00 payment was made to “district court” on June 14, 2013. (Filing No. 6 at CM/ECF p. 1.) The court has carefully reviewed the administrative and financial records of this court, and it has determined that the court did not receive Petitioner’s $5.00 payment. If Petitioner has questions about the $5.00 payment he made to a “district court” on June 14, 2013, a payment that is reflected on his inmate trust account statement (see Filing No. 8 at CM/ECF p. 15), he should direct them to the appropriate officials at his institution. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1. Petitioner’s application to proceed IFP (Filing No. 7) is denied; 2. Petitioner’s Motion for Information (Filing No. 6) is granted to the extent that it is consistent with this Memorandum and Order; 3. Petitioner is granted until September 30, 2013, to pay the $5.00 filing fee. Petitioner is warned that if the fee is not paid as required, the court may dismiss this case without further notice; 4. The Clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline in this case using the following text: September 30, 2013: deadline for Petitioner to pay $5.00 filing fee; and 5. No further review of this case will take place until the filing fee is paid. DATED this 28th day of August, 2013. BY THE COURT: s/Laurie Smith Camp Chief United States 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. 2

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?