Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01552/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01552-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERRYAL J. CULLER, SR.,

Petitioner,

 vs.

BOARD OF PRISON TERMS,

Respondent. /

No. C 07-1552 WHA (PR) 

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO

RECONSIDER AND DENYING

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

This is a pro se habeas action. The court notified petitioner that his application for leave

to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) was deficient because he had not provided a copy of his

inmate trust account as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2), and had omitted the page of the

form application which contains a certificate of funds in his inmate account. He was informed

that if he did not either pay the fee or correct the deficiencies within thirty days the case would

be dismissed. 

Petitioner filed another application, but although he included the page he had omitted

previously in the new application, the certificate of funds, the signature line was blank, and he

still did not provide the copy of his inmate account transactions required by Section 1915(a)(2). 

The case therefore was dismissed without prejudice. 

Petitioner has filed two motions to reconsider and a properly-completed application for

leave to proceed IFP. In the motions to reconsider he says that the failure to file a properlycompleted IFP application within the time allowed was not his fault, because he gave the IFP

form to the trust department on March 13, 2007, to complete and they failed to properly

Case 3:07-cv-01552-WHA Document 12 Filed 03/04/08 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

2

complete it. The clerk’s notice of IFP deficiency, however, was not filed until March 19, 2007,

at which time petitioner was mailed not only the notice but another copy of the form and an

envelope in which to return it. In the motions to reconsider he does not claim to have attempted

to remedy the deficiency after receiving the notice. The motions to reconsider (documents *

and 9 on the docket) therefore are DENIED. The motion to proceed IFP (document 10) is

DENIED as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 4 , 2008. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\HC.07\CULLER552.REC

Case 3:07-cv-01552-WHA Document 12 Filed 03/04/08 Page 2 of 2