Harris v. Johnson et al

Filing 17

ORDER - Petitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 16 ) is denied. Petitioner will have until and including April 30, 2021, to pay the $5 filing fee for this action. To pay the filing fee, Petitione r must make the necessary arrangements to have a check for $5 sent to the Court, along with a copy of this Order or some other indication that the filing fee is for this action (Case No. 3:20-CV-00695-MMD-WGC). Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 3/31/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AB)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 *** 6 BARRY HARRIS, 7 8 Case No. 3:20-cv-00695-MMD-WGC Petitioner, ORDER v. 9 CALVIN JOHNSON, et al., 10 Respondents. 11 12 13 In this habeas corpus action, in which Petitioner Barry Harris is represented by 14 appointed counsel, on January 14, 2021, the Court denied Harris’ application to proceed 15 in forma pauperis on the ground that it was “incomplete, in that it does not include the 16 required certificate of a prison official showing the amount of funds in Harris’ trust 17 accounts.” (ECF No. 10 at 1.) The Court granted Harris time to pay the $5 filing fee or to 18 file a new, complete application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Id. at 2.) 19 On February 11, 2021, Harris filed a motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 11), 20 requesting that the Court reconsider the denial of his in forma pauperis application. Harris 21 pointed out that he filed a financial certificate on December 14, 2020 (ECF No. 1-2). The 22 Court denied the motion for reconsideration, determining that the financial certificate 23 submitted by Harris on December 14, 2020, was insufficient in that it was not filed 24 simultaneously with his in forma pauperis application, was not current when he filed his 25 in forma pauperis application (it was signed on October 26, 2020), and did not show the 26 deposits in his account for the six months before the in forma pauperis application was 27 filed. (ECF No. 13.) The Court again granted Harris time to pay the $5 filing fee or to file 28 a new, complete application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Id. at 2.) 1 On March 3, 2021, Harris filed another in forma pauperis application. (ECF No. 2 14.) That application included a financial certificate on the proper form, but the financial 3 certificate, dated February 2, 2021, showed that Harris is able to pay the filing fee. 4 Therefore, on March 4, 2021, the Court denied the application. (ECF No. 15.) The Court 5 ordered that Harris was to pay the $5 filing fee by April 9, 2021. (Id.) 6 On March 29, 2021, Harris filed yet another in forma pauperis application. (ECF 7 No. 16.) The March 29th application is identical to the March 3rd application; attached to 8 the March 29th application is the same February 2 financial certificate that was attached 9 to the March 3rd application. The financial certificate shows that Harris is able to pay the 10 filing fee. The March 29th application will therefore be denied. Harris will be required to 11 pay the $5 filing fee. The Court will extend to April 30, 2021, the time for Harris to pay the 12 filing fee. 13 14 15 16 17 Harris is warned that if he does not pay the filing fee within the time allowed, this action may be dismissed. It is therefore ordered that Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 16) is denied. It is further ordered that Petitioner will have until and including April 30, 2021, to 18 pay the $5 filing fee for this action. To pay the filing fee, Petitioner must make the 19 necessary arrangements to have a check for $5 sent to the Court, along with a copy of 20 this Order or some other indication that the filing fee is for this action (Case No. 3:20-cv- 21 00695-MMD-WGC). 22 DATED THIS 31st Day of March 2021. 23 24 25 26 MIRANDA M. DU CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?