Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-00230/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-00230-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARMANDO MOLINA,

Petitioner,

 v.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA,

Respondent. /

No. C 10-0230 PJH (PR)

ORDER FOR PETITIONER TO

SHOW CAUSE

On January 19, 2010, the court received a form “Petition for Writ of Certiorari” headed

“In the Supreme Court of the United States.” The form is an original, completed in pencil. It

was accompanied by a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on a Supreme

Court form. In an effort to protect petitioner’s rights, the filings were treated as an attempt to

start a new habeas case in this court. The clerk sent petitioner a notice that his IFP

application was deficient because it was not on the right form, did not include a certificate of

fund in his inmate account, and did not include a printout of transactions in his inmate

account for the prior six months. A copy of the court’s form for prisoner habeas IFP

applications was included with the notice.

On February 1, 2010, petitioner filed this court’s IFP form and a notice of filing petition

for certiorari headed “Supreme Court of the United States.” That he chose to file the IFP

form suggests that he may have intended to file in this court, but everything else suggests

that he wanted to file a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court

and merely sent the materials to the wrong court.

Petitioner shall show cause within thirty days of the date this order is entered why this

case should not be dismissed as filed in the wrong court. If he intended to file in the

Case 4:10-cv-00230-PJH Document 6 Filed 03/23/10 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

Supreme Court rather than this court, he should simply say that; this case will be dismissed

as filed in error and he can then file in the United States Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. 

In so saying the court expresses no opinion as to whether a petition for certiorari so filed

would be timely. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 23, 2010. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

P:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.10\MOLINA0230.OSC-P.wpd

Case 4:10-cv-00230-PJH Document 6 Filed 03/23/10 Page 2 of 2