Riggins v. Foulk

Full title: JAMES RIGGINS, Petitioner, v. F. FOULK, Respondents.

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

Date published: Sep 24, 2015

2:15-cv-1718 AC P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 24, 2015)

Opinion

JAMES RIGGINS, Petitioner, v. F. FOULK, Respondents. No. 2:15-cv-1718 AC P United States District Court, E.D. California. September 24, 2015

          ORDER

          ALLISON CLAIRE, District 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 has filed an in forma pauperis affidavit. ECF No. 6. However, the form used by petitioner does not contain the certificate portion to be filled out and signed by an authorized prison official. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, Rule 3(a)(2). Petitioner will be provided with an in forma pauperis application that includes the required certificate portion and another opportunity to submit a fully completed application to proceed in forma pauperis.

         In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

         1. Petitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 6) is denied without prejudice.

         2. Petitioner shall submit, within thirty days from the date of this order, an affidavit in support of his request to proceed in forma pauperis that includes the required certificate portion filled out and signed by an authorized prison official. Petitioner's failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of this action; and

         3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send petitioner a new Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis By a Prisoner.