Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01955/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01955-0/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)

---

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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\11cv1955-Notice.wpd, 9111 -1- 11cv1955

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NGHIEM D. DANG, Civil No. 11cv1955-BTM (WVG)

Plaintiff,

NOTICE REGARDING 

POSSIBLE DISMISSAL 

FOR FAILURE TO SATISFY 

FILING FEE REQUIREMENT

v.

L. S. McEWAN,

Respondent.

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which contains four claims, two of which have been

presented to the California Supreme Court and two of which have not. (Pet .at 6-9.) Petitioner

has also filed a Motion for Stay and Abeyance in which he indicates that he has begun the

process of exhausting his state court remedies as to the two unexhausted claims by presenting

them in a habeas petition in the state trial court. (Doc. No. 2.) 

Petitioner has not paid the $5.00 filing fee and has not filed an application to proceed in

forma pauperis. This Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the $5.00 filing fee

or qualified to proceed in forma pauperis. See Rule 3(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.

Petitioner is advised that in order to avoid dismissal of his case, he must either pay the

$5.00 filing fee or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis no later than October

31, 2011. If Petitioner does not pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit an application to proceed in

Case 3:11-cv-01955-BTM-KSC Document 4 Filed 09/01/11 Page 1 of 2
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

1

 The Court cautions Petitioner that under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996

(AEDPA) a one-year period of limitation shall apply to a petition for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The limitation period shall run from the latest of:

(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of

direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review;

(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created

by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is

removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing by such State action;

(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially

recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized by the

Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review;

or

(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims

presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.

28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(d)(1)(A)-(D) (West 2006).

The statute of limitations does not run while a properly filed state habeas corpus petition is pending. 28

U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2); see Nino v. Galaza, 183 F.3d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir. 1999). But see Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S.

4, 8 (2000) (holding that “an application is ‘properly filed’ when its delivery and acceptance [by the appropriate

court officer for placement into the record] are in compliance with the applicable laws and rules governing

filings.”); Bonner v. Carey, 425 F.3d 1145, 1149 (9th Cir.) (holding that a state application for post-conviction

relief which is ultimately dismissed as untimely was neither “properly filed” nor “pending” while it was under

consideration by the state court, and therefore does not toll the statute of limitations), as amended 439 F.3d 993,

cert. denied, 127 S.Ct (2006). However, absent some other basis for tolling, the statute of limitations continues

to run while a federal habeas petition is pending. Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 181-82 (2001).

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\11cv1955-Notice.wpd, 9111 -2- 11cv1955

forma pauperis by October 31, 2011, this case will be dismissed without prejudice, and

Petitioner will have to begin again by filing a new petition which may be barred by the statute

of limitations.1

PETITIONER IS SO NOTIFIED.

DATED: August 31, 2011

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-01955-BTM-KSC Document 4 Filed 09/01/11 Page 2 of 2