Singleton, Marcus et al v. Eckstein, Scott

Filing 6

ORDER on ifp request: Trust Fund Account Statement due 12/27/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peter A. Oppeneer on 12/4/2017. (jef),(ps)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN MARCUS O. SINGLETON, Petitioner, ORDER v. Case No. 17-cv-898-wmc SCOTT ECKSTEIN, Respondent. Petitioner Marcus O. Singleton seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has submitted a motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. (Dkt. # 3). The court cannot consider this motion, however, because it lacks supporting documentation regarding petitioner’s eligibility for indigent status. For this case to move forward, petitioner must either pay the $5 filing fee or submit a certified inmate trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of this habeas corpus petition. If petitioner does not submit either the $5 filing fee or a trust fund account statement before December 27, 2017, the court will assume that petitioner wishes to withdraw this action voluntarily and will dismiss the petition. ORDER IT IS ORDERED that: 1. The motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee (Dkt. # 3) is DENIED at this time. 2. No later than December 27, 2017, petitioner Marcus O. Singleton shall pay the $5 filing fee or submit a certified copy of petitioner’s inmate trust fund account statement for the six-month period from the date of the habeas petition (May 27, 2017 through at least November 27, 2017). 3. If petitioner fails to pay the $5 filing fee, comply as directed, or show cause for failure to do so, the court will assume the petitioner wishes to withdraw this petition. Entered this 4th day of December, 2017. BY THE COURT: /s/ PETER OPPENEER Magistrate Judge

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?