Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-01925/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-01925-0/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

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HERMAN TIEMENS, JR., 

Petitioner,

 v.

ANNA RAMIREZ-PALMAR,

Respondent. ______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 02-1925 CRB (PR) 

ORDER

(Doc # 8)

On April 19, 2002, petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging an unspecified conviction from the Superior

Court of the State of California in and for the County of Sonoma. The court

notified petitioner in writing on that date that the action was deficient because he

did not pay the requisite $5.00 filing fee or, instead, submit a signed and

completed court-approved in forma pauperis ("IFP") application. Petitioner was

advised that failure to file the requested items within 30 days would result in

dismissal of the action. 

On May 31, 2002, the petition was dismissed without prejudice because

“[m]ore than 40 days ha[d] elapsed . . . [and] petitioner ha[d] not filed the requisite

items, or sought an extension of time to do so.” 

Case 3:02-cv-01925-CRB Document 9 Filed 06/11/07 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

27

28

Petitioner moved to reopen the closed file on the ground that he had finally

obtained the requisite items. On July 2, 2002, the court denied petitioner’s request,

but explained: Because the dismissal was without prejudice, "petitioner is free to

refile his petition as a new action as long as it is accompanied by either the

requisite $5.00 filing fee or a signed and completed court-approved [IFP]

application. Petitioner is advised that should he refile his petition, he must specify

the state criminal conviction he wishes to challenge in federal court as well as the

grounds/reasons why he claims the conviction is unconstitutional."

Nearly five years later, petitioner has submitted for filing in this closed file

a new petition for a writ of habeas corpus accompanied by a signed and completed

court-approved IFP application. The clerk is instructed to STRIKE the petition

and IFP application from this closed file (doc # 8) and file them as a new habeas

action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (suit code 530). 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 11, 2007 ___________________________ 

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

Case 3:02-cv-01925-CRB Document 9 Filed 06/11/07 Page 2 of 2