Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-07340/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-07340-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:1651 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID S. QUAIR,

Petitioner,

v.

GOVERNMENT CLAIMS BOARD

PROGRAM PIU #811226,

Respondent.

Case No. 18-cv-07340-YGR (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE

This suit was reassigned from a magistrate judge to the undersigned in light of a recent 

Ninth Circuit decision.1 On December 5, 2018, this case was commenced when Petitioner, a state 

prisoner, filed a document captioned “Petition For A Writ of Habeas Corpus.” Dkt. 1. The Court 

notes that the instant petition does not seem to challenge either the fact of Petitioner’s conviction 

or the length of his sentence. Rather, it mostly pertains to the conditions of Petitioner’s 

confinement. However, the Court need not further address this issue because this action is being 

dismissed, as explained below.

On the same day the action was filed, the Clerk of the Court sent a notice to Petitioner 

informing him that his action could not go forward until he paid the filing fee or filed a completed 

prisoner’s in forma pauperis application. Dkt. 2. The Clerk also sent Petitioner a blank in forma 

pauperis application and told him that he must pay the fee or return the completed application 

within twenty-eight days or his action would be dismissed. 

Thereafter, Petitioner filed in forma pauperis applications. Dkts. 4, 6. However, he did 

not file copies of the Certificate of Funds and prisoner trust account statement.

The twenty-eight-day deadline has passed, and Petitioner has not paid the filing fee or filed 

the requisite supporting documents. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

 

1 Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 503 (9th Cir. 2017) (magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction 

to dismiss case on initial screening because unserved defendants had not consented to proceed 

before magistrate judge).

Case 4:18-cv-07340-YGR Document 16 Filed 02/26/19 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

The Court notes that if Petitioner wishes to pursue any claims relating to his conditions of 

confinement, then Petitioner should take note that the dismissal is without prejudice to refiling as a 

civil rights action. Petitioner’s in forma pauperis applications are DENIED as incomplete. Dkts. 

4, 6. The Clerk shall terminate as moot all pending motions, including Petitioner’s other 

remaining motions (dkts. 7, 9, 10), and close the file. 

This Order terminates Docket Nos. 4, 6, 7, 9 and 10.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Court Judge

February 26, 2019

Case 4:18-cv-07340-YGR Document 16 Filed 02/26/19 Page 2 of 2