Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_98-cv-06053/USCOURTS-caed-1_98-cv-06053-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eddie Garcia
Petitioner
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDDIE GARCIA,

Petitioner,

v.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 98-6053 AWI SMS HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION OF COLLECTION

OF FILING FEE

[Doc. 11]

Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on September 16, 1998. By order of

January 27, 1999, the Court directed Petitioner to submit a complete in forma pauperis

application or pay the $5.00 dollar filing fee. On this same date, the Court also issued an order

directing Petitioner to submit his petition on the proper §2254 form. Petitioner failed to do

either. Therefore, on March 24, 1999, the Court issued a Report and Recommendation that the

petition be dismissed for failure to exhaust the state court remedies and for failing to comply with

the Court’s orders. The recommendation was adopted in full on August 31, 1999, and case was

dismissed. Judgment was entered this same date. 

Almost six years later, Petitioner has now filed a motion for reconsideration of collection

of the filing fee to reinstate his case. Petitioner contends that he was sent the Court’s order

directing payment of the fee, however, he was not noticed of the thirty day time limit.

Petitioner’s contentions lack merit. The Court’s order of January 27, 1999, specifically

directed that the in forma pauperis application or filing fee was due within thirty days from the

Case 1:98-cv-06053-AWI -SMS Document 12 Filed 07/15/05 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

27

28 1

 By this statement the Court expresses no opinion as the timeliness of such a petition.

2

date of service. Further, Petitioner’s current request is wholly untimely as it was filed nearly six

years after the issuance of the Court’s order. Moreover, the instant action was dismissed, without

prejudice, thus, nothing prevents Petitioner from refiling a petition for writ of habeas corpus.1 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s request for

reconsideration of the collection of the filing fee, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 15, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:98-cv-06053-AWI -SMS Document 12 Filed 07/15/05 Page 2 of 2