From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matlock v. Martel

United States District Court, E.D. California
Dec 30, 2010
No. CIV S-10-3049-JAM-CMK-P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2010)

Opinion

No. CIV S-10-3049-JAM-CMK-P.

December 30, 2010


ORDER


Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 apparently challenging the denial of parole in July 2009. Pending before the court is petitioner's request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 9). Petitioner's amended petition will be addressed separately.

According to petitioner, the $5.00 filing fee was paid in the Northern District, where this action was originally filed. A review of the docket reveals that petitioner is correct. In any event, because petitioner has now submitted an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the court will consider the request.

Petitioner has submitted the affidavit required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) showing that petitioner is unable to prepay fees and costs or give security therefor.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 9) is granted.

DATED: December 29, 2010


Summaries of

Matlock v. Martel

United States District Court, E.D. California
Dec 30, 2010
No. CIV S-10-3049-JAM-CMK-P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2010)
Case details for

Matlock v. Martel

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL STEPHEN MATLOCK, Petitioner, v. MIKE MARTEL, et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Dec 30, 2010

Citations

No. CIV S-10-3049-JAM-CMK-P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2010)