Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00839/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00839-3/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RON ULREY,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-0839 FCD DAD P

vs.

JAMES A. YATES, et al.,

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

On April 19, 2006, petitioner submitted a habeas petition and an incomplete

application to proceed in forma pauperis. By order filed April 26, 2006, petitioner was granted

thirty days to submit the $5.00 filing fee or a properly completed in forma pauperis application. 

On May 21, 2006, petitioner requested “a few extra days” on the ground that the trust office was

late in sending the filing fee. By order filed June 9, 2006, the court granted petitioner an

additional thirty days to pay the fee. By order filed July 24, 2006, petitioner was ordered to show

good cause within ten days for his failure to pay the fee or, in the alternative, to file a properly

completed in forma pauperis application. Petitioner was cautioned that failure to show good

cause will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

Petitioner’s response is before the court. In a document that is not sworn under

penalty of perjury or accompanied by supporting evidence, petitioner claims he “sent the form

Case 2:06-cv-00839-FCD-DAD Document 13 Filed 11/27/06 Page 1 of 3
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

2

from the trust account office here at the prison showing my account to the Supreme Court in San

Francisco asked for proof showing my indigency.” Petitioner then inquires whether the courts

are “the same,” whether this court can “get the forms of forma pauperis from them,” and whether

he sent the forms to the wrong court. He states that he “assumed” he was sending the in forma

pauperis form to the right court.

Petitioner’s response does not demonstrate good cause for failing to comply with

orders concerning the filing fee in this case. Petitioner’s copy of the April 26, 2006 order was

accompanied by a federal habeas petition form and a federal in forma pauperis application form. 

Petitioner’s suggestion that he is unable to distinguish between a federal court in Sacramento and

a state court in San Francisco is not credible because petitioner completed the federal habeas

petition provided by this court and returned it to this court. Petitioner’s suggestion that he mailed

the federal in forma pauperis application form to the California Supreme Court is unavailing

because petitioner represented to this court in his letter dated May 26, 2006, that he was sending

the filing fee rather than an in forma pauperis application. If it was not petitioner’s intention to

pay the $5.00 filing fee, he has failed to explain why he did not object to this court’s July 24,

2006 order expressly granting him a thirty-day extension of time to submit the required filing fee. 

Four months have passed since the order to show cause was issued in this case, and petitioner has

not paid the filing fee or submitted a properly completed in forma pauperis application.

This action has been pending for seven months. In the absence of good cause for

petitioner’s failure to submit the $5.00 filing fee or a properly completed in forma pauperis

application during those seven months, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be

dismissed without prejudice.

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within

thirty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file

written objections with the court. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections

Case 2:06-cv-00839-FCD-DAD Document 13 Filed 11/27/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations” and should be accompanied by the $5.00

filing fee or a properly completed application to proceed in forma pauperis. Failure to file

objections within the specified time may, under certain circumstances, waive the right to appeal

the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: November 27, 2006.

DAD:13

ulre0839.fpf

Case 2:06-cv-00839-FCD-DAD Document 13 Filed 11/27/06 Page 3 of 3