Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-05458/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-05458-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael D. Owbridge
Petitioner
Rich Subia
Respondent

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL D. OWBRIDGE,

Petitioner,

 vs.

RICH SUBIA, Warden,

Respondents. /

No. C 07-5458 PJH (PR)

ORDER TO PAY FILING FEE

OR FILE IN FORMA

PAUPERIS APPLICATION

This case was opened when the clerk received a letter from petitioner saying that

there had been a “mix-up.” He said that he had mailed the court three copies of a petition

for a writ of habeas corpus and a properly completed in forma pauperis application. He

says he enclosed a stamped self-addressed envelope and requested that a file-stamped

copy of the face page of the petition be returned to him. Instead he got back a form letter

saying that the court cannot act on narrative letters complaining of civil rights violations, but

that prisoners who wish to file suit must file a formal complaint; attached to the letter was a

copy of the habeas petition, not file-stamped. Oddly, he enclosed with his “mix-up” letter

two envelopes in which he says he sent the petitions, each of which is postmarked October

12; one of the envelopes carries a clerk’s file stamp from this court showing it was received

on October 12. Petitioner does not explain how he came to have the envelopes nor how

they were received the same day they were postmarked. 

Although these points may become important if the respondent contends that the

petition is untimely, it is unnecessary to resolve exactly what happened at this stage of the

case. The petition was attached to the “mix-up” letter, and petitioner filed a quantity of

exhibits at the same time. That petition was filed by the clerk as the petition commencing

Case 4:07-cv-05458-PJH Document 5 Filed 11/02/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

this case, document number one on the docket. Petitioner thus has a habeas petition on

file now. He does not, however, have a completed IFP application on file. If one was sent,

it did not reach the file. Petitioner therefore shall either file a properly completed IFP

application, using the form sent to him by the clerk with the notice of IFP deficiency, or pay

the five-dollar filing fee, within thirty days of the date this order is entered. This case will be

dismissed if he does not.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 2, 2007. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.07\owbridge5458.ifp1.wpd

Case 4:07-cv-05458-PJH Document 5 Filed 11/02/07 Page 2 of 2