Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-04125/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-04125-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Nancy Abston
Plaintiff
The People of the State of California
Defendant

Document Text:

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NANCY ABSTON,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

C 08-4125 MMC(PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

(Docket No. 2)

On August 28, 2008, the instant action was opened when plaintiff, a California

prisoner incarcerated at Valley State Prison for Women in Chowchilla, California, and

proceeding pro se, filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Plaintiff did not

file any other documents with the IFP application. That same date, the Court notified

plaintiff in writing that the action was deficient due to plaintiff’s failure to submit either a

complaint or petition. In said notice, plaintiff was advised that her failure to submit a

complaint or petition within thirty days would result in dismissal of the action. Along with

said notice, plaintiff was sent copies of the Court’s civil rights complaint and habeas petition

forms, instructions for completing both forms, and a return envelope.

On September 17, 2008, plaintiff filed both a civil rights complaint and a habeas

petition. The civil rights complaint was docketed in the above-titled action, and the habeas

petition was opened as a separate action, Abston v. People of the State of California, C 08-

4362 MMC (PR). In the civil rights complaint, the only information plaintiff has provided is

Case 3:08-cv-04125-MMC Document 4 Filed 09/30/08 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

2

that she filed a state habeas corpus petition or petitions, and that she is seeking the following

relief: “I would like to be taken back to court to get mid or low term. Also I would like the

not stopping to report an accident thrown out because I was unconscious.” (Compl. at 2, 3.) 

In the habeas petition, plaintiff has provided detailed information, explaining therein that she

is challenging the validity of her underlying state criminal conviction, which was obtained in

2007 in the Superior Court of Fresno County. (See C 08-4362 Pet.) 

Based on the above, it appears that in response to the Court’s notice informing

plaintiff she must file either a complaint or petition, plaintiff erroneously filed both a civil

rights complaint and a habeas petition, seeking the same relief in both. As it is clear that

plaintiff is attempting to challenge the validity of her conviction, and the proper way to do so

is by way of habeas corpus, the instant action is hereby DISMISSED as duplicative. By

separate order filed concurrently herewith, the Court has reviewed plaintiff’s habeas petition

in C 08-4362 and ordered the petition transferred, on venue grounds, to the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of California. 

In light of the above set of circumstances, no filing fee is due in the instant matter and

plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP is hereby DISMISSED as moot. (Docket No. 2.)

This order terminates Docket No. 2.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 30, 2008

 MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-04125-MMC Document 4 Filed 09/30/08 Page 2 of 2