Guilford v. Lombardo

Filing 3

ORDER that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice to the filing of a new petition in a new action with a properly completed application form to proceed in forma pauperis.FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED, as jurist s of reason would not find the court's dismissal of this improperly commenced action without prejudice to be debatable or incorrect.FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall send petitioner two copies each of an application form to proceed in form a pauperis for incarcerated persons and a noncapital Section 2254 habeas petition form, one copy of the instructions for each form, and a copy of the papers that he submitted in this action. FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and close this case. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 11/17/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

CARL MARCUS GUILFORD,

10

v.

11

Case No. 2:17-cv-01236-APG-PAL
Petitioner,

ORDER

SHERIFF JOE LOMBARDO, et al.,

12

Respondents.

13
14

Petitioner Carl Marcus Guilford has submitted what he has styled a pro se petition

15

for writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (ECF No. 1-1). The petition is

16

not on the court’s required form. Moreover, petitioner has failed to submit an application

17

to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee. Accordingly, this matter has not been

18

properly commenced. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and Local Rule LSR1-2.

19

Thus, the present action will be dismissed without prejudice to the filing of a new

20

petition in a new action with either the $5.00 filing fee or a completed application to

21

proceed in forma pauperis on the proper form with both an inmate account statement for

22

the past six months and a properly executed financial certificate.

23

It does not appear from the papers presented that a dismissal without prejudice

24

will materially affect a later analysis of any timeliness issue with regard to a new action

25

filed in a timely manner after petitioner has exhausted all available state remedies.1

26

Petitioner at all times remains responsible for properly exhausting his claims, for

27
28

1

The papers that petitioner has attached to his filing appear to indicate only that he filed a state habeas
corpus petition when he was a pretrial detainee, and the state district court denied the petition on July 31,
2012 (ECF No. 1-1, pp. 10-11).

1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

calculating the running of the federal limitation period as applied to his case, and for
properly commencing a timely-filed federal habeas action.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice to
the filing of a new petition in a new action with a properly completed application form to
proceed in forma pauperis.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED, as jurists
of reason would not find the court’s dismissal of this improperly commenced action
without prejudice to be debatable or incorrect.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall send petitioner two copies each
of an application form to proceed in forma pauperis for incarcerated persons and a
noncapital Section 2254 habeas petition form, one copy of the instructions for each form,
and a copy of the papers that he submitted in this action.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly
and close this case.
DATED: 17 November 2017.
ANDREW P. GORDON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2