Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02791/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02791-0/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

ASTARTE DAVIS-RICE,

Petitioner,

 v.

SCHELIA A. CLARK,

Respondent. ______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 06-2791 MMC (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On April 24, 2006, petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the abovetitled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On the same date,

the Clerk notified petitioner in writing that the action was deficient due to her failure to pay

the filing fee or, alternatively, to submit a signed and completed court-approved in forma

pauperis ("IFP") application. Along with said notice, the Court sent to petitioner copies of

the Court’s IFP application, a stamped return envelope, and instructions for completing the

application, including a certificate of funds signed by an authorized prison official and a trust

account statement showing transactions for the last six months. Petitioner was advised that

failure to pay the filing fee or to file a completed IFP application, including the certificate of

funds and trust account statement, within thirty days, would result in dismissal of the action. 

To date, petitioner has not paid the filing fee or submitted an IFP application. 

The Court received a letter from petitioner stating that “the filing fee request has been

turned over to my counselor Mr. Rivas.” The letter is not sworn nor is it accompanied by any
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

documentary proof that such a request was made. Moreover, simply turning over a request to

prison authorities does not satisfy petitioner’s obligation under the deficiency notice to

ensure that either the filing fee is paid or that a completed IFP application is filed. As the

deadline has passed for compliance with the deficiency notice, and petitioner has not

completed the IFP application, paid the filing fee, or shown cause why she could not do so,

the above-titled action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice to petitioner’s refiling her

claims in a new action in which she either pays the filing fee or files a completed IFP

application.

The Clerk shall close the file. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 14, 2006 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge