Bayard v. State of Nevada et al
Filing
4
ORDER DISMISSING CASE with prejudice as improperly commenced and clearly frivolous. Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 4/27/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
8
ANTWON MAURICE BAYARD,
9
Petitioner,
3:15-cv-00102-RCJ-WGC
10
vs.
11
ORDER
12
13
NEVADA, STATE OF, et al.,
Respondents.
14
15
Petitioner has submitted a pro se form petition for writ of habeas corpus by a person attacking
16
a state detainer (ECF #1-1). However, petitioner has failed to submit an application to proceed in forma
17
pauperis or pay the filing fee. Accordingly, this matter has not been properly commenced. 28 U.S.C.
18
§ 1915(a)(2) and Local Rule LSR1-2.
19
Moreover, petitioner apparently seeks to challenge the dismissal with prejudice of a civil rights
20
action that he filed in this court, case no. 3:14-cv-00446-MMD-WGC. See ECF #1-1, pp. 12, 14-15.
21
The court dismissed the earlier case–in which petitioner sought a writ of execution in the sum of 700
22
billion dollars against the Director of the Nevada Department of Corrections–with prejudice as clearly
23
frivolous. 3:14-cv-00446-MMD-VPC, ECF #s 17, 23.
24
25
26
27
28
Thus, the present action will be dismissed with prejudice for failure to file an application to
proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee and as clearly frivolous.
1
2
3
4
5
6
IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice as
improperly commenced and clearly frivolous.
IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly
and close this case.
Dated: This 27th day of April, 2015.
Dated, this ___ day of April, 2015.
7
8
___________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-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?