Coleman v. Hill

Full title: SAAHDI COLEMAN, Petitioner, v. WARDEN RICK HILL, Respondent.

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Jun 7, 2013

2:13-cv-0292 DAD P (E.D. Cal. Jun. 7, 2013)

Opinion

SAAHDI COLEMAN, Petitioner, v. WARDEN RICK HILL, Respondent. No. 2:13-cv-0292 DAD P United States District Court, E.D. California. June 7, 2013

ORDER

DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge.

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner, the only party to appear in this action, has consented to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

By order filed April 22, 2013 (ECF No. 5), petitioner was ordered within thirty days either file an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the appropriate filing fee for this action. The thirty day period has expired and petitioner has not responded in any way to the court's order. Moreover, review of the record in this action shows that petitioner currently has another petition for writ of habeas corpus pending before this court, No. 2:12-cv-2621 DAD P. Review of the allegations of the petition filed in that action and the petition filed in this action shows that the instant action is duplicative of the earlier-filed habeas action. For these reasons, this action will be dismissed.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice.