Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00114/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00114-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEROME WILSON

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-0114 DFL CMK P

vs.

SCOTT KERNAN,

Defendant. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a complaint titled “Petition for a

Writ of Justice on January 18, 2005. He did not, however, pay the filing fee or submit an

application to proceed in forma pauperis. The court originally construed the complaint as a

petition for a writ of habeas corpus and directed plaintiff to re-file on the proper form for a writ

of habeas corpus and to pay the filing fee or request to proceed in forma pauperis. 

On February 14, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion which notified the court that he had

intended his January 18, 2005 motion to be a civil rights complaint. Plaintiff did not submit the

required filing fee or request to proceed in forma pauperis. On March 9, 2005, the court directed

plaintiff to submit a completed in forma pauperis application and a certified copy of his prison

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-00114-DFL-CMK Document 7 Filed 04/28/05 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

2

 trust account statement within thirty days from the date of the order. Plaintiff was notified that

failure to comply with the order would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed

without prejudice. 

Petitioner has not submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. 

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States

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

twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file

written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be

captioned “Objections to Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be

served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that

failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: April 27, 2005

/s/ CRAIG M. KELLISON 

Craig M. Kellison

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:05-cv-00114-DFL-CMK Document 7 Filed 04/28/05 Page 2 of 2