Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-05667/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-05667-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Barron Edwards
Petitioner
M. E. Spearman
Respondent

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 California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BARRON EDWARDS,

Petitioner,

v.

M. E. SPEARMAN, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 18-cv-05667-YGR (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE

This suit was reassigned from a magistrate judge to the undersigned in light of a recent 

Ninth Circuit decision.1 On September 17, 2018, Petitioner, a state prisoner, filed the present 

petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner also filed a “Stay and 

Abeyance Motion.” Dkt. 2.

On the same day the action was filed, the Clerk of the Court sent a notice to Petitioner 

informing him that his action could not go forward until he paid the filing fee or filed a completed 

prisoner’s in forma pauperis application. Dkt. 3. The Clerk also sent Petitioner a blank in forma 

pauperis application and told him that he must pay the fee or return the completed application 

within twenty-eight days or his action would be dismissed. 

On October 4, 2018, the Clerk’s notice came back undeliverable because Petitioner’s

address did not include his CDC number, and thus prison staff could not locate him. Dkt. 5.

As mentioned above, this matter was then reassigned to the undersigned judge. Dkts. 6, 7.

On November 9, 2018, the Clerk sent a second notice to Petitioner (using the correct CDC 

number) and informing him that his action could not go forward until he paid the filing fee or filed 

a completed prisoner’s in forma pauperis application. Dkt. 8. The Clerk further informed him 

that his failure to pay the fee or return the completed application within twenty-eight days would 

result in dismissal of this action. 

 

1 Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 503 (9th Cir. 2017) (magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction 

to dismiss case on initial screening because unserved defendants had not consented to proceed 

before magistrate judge).

Case 4:18-cv-05667-YGR Document 9 Filed 02/25/19 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 California

More than twenty-eight days have passed and Petitioner has not paid the filing fee, 

returned the in forma pauperis application or otherwise communicated with the Court. 

Furthermore, the record shows that the Clerk’s second notice was not returned as undeliverable. 

Thus, the Court assumes that Petitioner received the Clerk’s second notice.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions, including his “Stay and Abeyance Motion” (dkt. 2), 

and close the file. 

This Order terminates Docket No. 2.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Court Judge

February 25, 2019

Case 4:18-cv-05667-YGR Document 9 Filed 02/25/19 Page 2 of 2