From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Grant v. Doe

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Jun 7, 2022
22-cv-02433-WHO (PR) (N.D. Cal. Jun. 7, 2022)

Opinion

22-cv-02433-WHO (PR)

06-07-2022

VERNON GRANT, Petitioner, v. JOHN DOE, Respondent.


ORDER OF DISMISSAL

WILLIAM H. ORRICK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

After petitioner Vernon Grant filed a “notice of information, ” the Clerk sent him notices directing him to file a petition on this Court's form and to file a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), or pay the filing fee. (Dkt. Nos. 2 and 3.) Grant has not complied with the Clerk's Notices. Accordingly, this federal habeas action is DISMISSED (without prejudice) for failing to comply with the Clerk's Notices and for failing to prosecute, see Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

Because this dismissal is without prejudice, Grant may move to reopen. Any such motion must contain (i) a complete application to proceed IFP (or full payment for the $5.00 filing fee), and (ii) a petition on this Court's form. The motion must also have the words MOTION TO REOPEN written on the first page.

The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of respondent, and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Grant v. Doe

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Jun 7, 2022
22-cv-02433-WHO (PR) (N.D. Cal. Jun. 7, 2022)
Case details for

Grant v. Doe

Case Details

Full title:VERNON GRANT, Petitioner, v. JOHN DOE, Respondent.

Court:United States District Court, Northern District of California

Date published: Jun 7, 2022

Citations

22-cv-02433-WHO (PR) (N.D. Cal. Jun. 7, 2022)