From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Johnson v. San Joaquin Superior Court

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Mar 8, 2023
2:23-cv-0157 AC P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2023)

Opinion

2:23-cv-0157 AC P

03-08-2023

MARCUS D. JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. SAN JOAQUIN SUPERIOR COURT, Respondent.


ORDER

ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES 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. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On January 30, 2023, petitioner was ordered to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis or, in the alternative, to pay the filing fee. ECF No. 3. Petitioner was given thirty days to do so.

More than thirty days have passed, and petitioner has neither filed the form, nor paid the filing fee. He has not responded to the court's order in any way.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within fourteen days of the date of this order, petitioner shall show cause why it should not be recommended that this matter be dismissed for failure to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis or, in the alternative, to pay the filing fee.

2. Petitioner's filing of the in forma pauperis application or his payment of the filing fee will eliminate his obligation to file the showing of cause.


Summaries of

Johnson v. San Joaquin Superior Court

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Mar 8, 2023
2:23-cv-0157 AC P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2023)
Case details for

Johnson v. San Joaquin Superior Court

Case Details

Full title:MARCUS D. JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. SAN JOAQUIN SUPERIOR COURT, Respondent.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Mar 8, 2023

Citations

2:23-cv-0157 AC P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2023)