Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01645/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01645-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHIRLEY V. REMMERT,

Petitioner,

 v.

JAMES P. FOX, District Attorney of San

Mateo County, et al.,I Respondent. /

No. C 08-01645 CRB

ORDER GRANTING IFP AND TO

SHOW CAUSE

Now pending before the Court is petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis

(“IFP”). A court may authorize a litigant to prosecute an action in federal court without

prepayment of fees or security if the litigant submits an affidavit showing that he or she is

unable to pay such fees or give security therefor. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Petitioner has

submitted the required documentation, and it is evident from her application that her assets

and income are insufficient to enable plaintiff to prosecute the action.

Viewing petitioner’s application in isolation, it appears that she should be allowed to

proceed IFP. A court is under a continuing duty, however, to dismiss a case whenever it

determines that the action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which

relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from

such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(I)-- (iii).

Remmert’s petition appears to arise out of a January 17, 2007 conviction. While she

alleges that during and after those proceedings she filed several habeas corpus petitions, she

Case 3:08-cv-01645-CRB Document 11 Filed 05/12/08 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

G:\CRBALL\2008\1645\orderdismissingpetition.frm 2

specifically represents that she did not appeal her conviction. Petition at p. 3. On the other

hand, in a motion to consolidate she alleges that this action is related to her petition in 08-

1644 CRB. The Court has determined that the petition in 08-144 CRB is premature because

the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of San Mateo County has not yet ruled on her

appeal.

Accordingly, petitioner is ordered to show cause why this action should not also be

dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies. In particular, on or before May 30, 2008,

petitioner shall advise the Court in writing of whether her appeal in People v. Remmert, AD

4986, 4987 (Superior Court Nos. SM351187, SM340531) is based on the same grounds as

the currently pending habeas corpus petition, 08-1645 CRB. If not, petitioner shall

specifically identify the conviction she is challenging and the basis for her constitutional

claims.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 12, 2008 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-01645-CRB Document 11 Filed 05/12/08 Page 2 of 2