Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01849/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01849-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERRYAL J. CULLER, SR.,

Plaintiff, 

 v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-1849 WHA (PR) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

RECONSIDER AND DENYING

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

This is a civil rights action filed pro se by a prisoner. The court notified petitioner that

his application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) was deficient because he had not

provided a copy of his inmate trust account as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2), and had

omitted the page of the form application which contains a certificate of funds in his inmate

account. He was informed that if he did not either pay the fee or correct the deficiencies within

thirty days the case would be dismissed. No response was received, so the case was dismissed

without prejudice. Plaintiff has moved to reconsider the dismissal and has filed a properlycompleted IFP application. 

Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider contains no allegation that he made an attempt to sure

the deficiencies after receiving the notice – he simply says that he asked the trust office to send

the information to the court, but does not say when. In addition, this motion, unlike the one in

his other case, No. C 07-1552 WHA (PR), is not signed under penalty of perjury or notarized,

Case 3:07-cv-01849-WHA Document 10 Filed 03/05/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

so his allegations in it are not evidence. The motion to reconsider (document number 6) is

DENIED. The motion for leave to proceed IFP (document 7) is DENIED as moot.

Plaintiff has also written to the Court asking advice about how to deal with the IFP

problems in his cases. The Court cannot provide legal advice. If, however, plaintiff were to

provide evidence – for instance in a declaration signed under penalty of perjury – that he

attempted to respond to the clerk’s notice of IFP deficiency, including dates, and was not able

to do so because of interference from the prison, he could assert that as grounds to reconsider. 

The Court expresses no opinion as to whether such a motion would be successful.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 5 , 2008. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\CR.07\CULLER849.REC 

Case 3:07-cv-01849-WHA Document 10 Filed 03/05/08 Page 2 of 2