Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05071/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05071-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Shannon Riley
Petitioner

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SHANNON RILEY, 

Petitioner, 

Case No. 15-cv-5071-TEH 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Petitioner Shannon Riley, a state prisoner, filed a motion 

for an extension of time to file a writ of habeas corpus under 28 

U.S.C. § 2254. Docket No. 1. On the same day the action was 

filed, the Court notified Petitioner in writing that his action 

was deficient because he did not pay the requisite $ 5.00 filing 

fee or, instead, submit with his in forma pauperis (IFP) 

application a completed certificate of funds in his prison trust 

account (COF) signed by an authorized officer and a copy of his 

prison trust account statement for the last six months. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). The notice informed Petitioner that if he 

did not file pay the fee or submit the required documents within 

twenty-eight days from the date of the notice, his action would 

be dismissed and the file closed. He was also informed that he 

did not file a petition and was also provided twenty-eight days 

to file a petition. 

Case 3:15-cv-05071-TEH Document 4 Filed 12/10/15 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 Californi

a

More than twenty-eight days have passed since the notice was 

filed and Petitioner has not paid the fee or provided the Court 

with the requisite items, or otherwise communicated with the 

Court. Accordingly, the action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 

Because reasonable jurists would not find the result here 

debatable, a certificate of appealability (“COA”) is DENIED. See 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000) (standard for 

COA). The Clerk is directed to terminate all pending motions as 

moot and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 12/08/2015 

________________________ 

THELTON E. HENDERSON 

United States District Judge 

G:\PRO-SE\TEH\HC.15\Riley5071.dis_ifp.docx

Case 3:15-cv-05071-TEH Document 4 Filed 12/10/15 Page 2 of 2