Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04443/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04443-0/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

1

Although no complaint or petition was filed, the Clerk of the Court opened a case file

comprised of the IFP application. The case was categorized as a habeas corpus action

because the IFP application includes a caption in which petitioner identifies himself as

“Petitioner” and “A. Hedgpeth, Warden” as “Respondent.” 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANK LEON WEBSTER,

Petitioner,

 v.

A. HEDGPETH, Warden,

Respondent. ____________________________________ 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-4443 MMC (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On August 28, 2007, petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an in

forma pauperis (“IFP”) application on a form that is not approved in the Northern District of

California. Petitioner did not file any other documents with the IFP application.1

 That same

date, the Court notified petitioner in writing that the action was deficient due to petitioner’s

failure to submit either a complaint or petition. In said notice, petitioner was advised that his

failure to submit a complaint or petition within thirty days would result in dismissal of the

action. Along with said notice, petitioner was sent a copy of the Court’s habeas corpus form,

instructions for completing it, and a return envelope. 

On August 29, 2007, the Court further notified petitioner in writing that the action was

deficient due to petitioner’s failure to pay the requisite filing fee or, instead, to submit a

completed court-approved IFP application. In said notice, petitioner was advised that his

failure to pay the filing fee or, alternatively, to file a completed IFP application, within thirty

days, would result in dismissal of the action. Along with said notice, petitioner was sent a

copy of the Court’s IFP application, instructions for completing it, and a return envelope. 

Petitioner has not responded to either of the Court’s deficiency notices. Accordingly,

as each deficiency notice was issued more than thirty days ago and petitioner has neither

Case 3:07-cv-04443-MMC Document 4 Filed 10/15/07 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

2

submitted a complaint or petition, nor completed the IFP application or paid the filing fee, the

above-titled action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice. 

The Clerk shall close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 15, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-04443-MMC Document 4 Filed 10/15/07 Page 2 of 2