From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pastor v. Martinez

United States District Court, Southern District of California
Apr 18, 2022
21cv1810 BTM (JLB) (S.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2022)

Opinion

21cv1810 BTM (JLB)

04-18-2022

MARCO A. PASTOR, Petitioner, v. LOUIS A. MARTINEZ, Warden, Respondent.


ORDER DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND CLOSING CASE

HONORABLE BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

On October 22, 2021, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1-2.) In a November 5, 2021, Order, the Court denied Petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, issued an order to show cause requiring action, and directed that in order to avoid dismissal of his habeas action, Petitioner must, no later than January 4, 2022, both: (1) pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit adequate proof of his inability to pay the filing fee and (2) choose one of the four options outlined in that order. (ECF No. 3.)

On December 1, 2021, Petitioner paid the $5.00 filing fee and on December 16, 2021, Petitioner filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, accompanied by what appeared to be a blank copy of this district's 28 U.S.C. section 2254 habeas form. (ECF No. 5-6.) On December 20, 2021, the Court issued an order denying the motion to proceed in forma pauperis as moot and reminding Petitioner that while the filing fee requirement had now been satisfied in the instant case, to avoid dismissal of his habeas action, Petitioner must, on or before January 4, 2022, choose one of the four options outlined in the Court's November 5, 2021, Order, and cautioning Petitioner that if he failed to respond, the petition would be dismissed without prejudice. (See ECF No. 6.)

On February 11, 2022, the Court issued an order to show cause why the instant habeas action should not be dismissed for failure to choose an option, and gave Petitioner a final deadline of April 4, 2022 to choose an option, “in view of the potentiality that law library inaccessibility due to Covid-19 has contributed to delays in Petitioner responding to the portion of the Court's order requiring him to choose one of the four outlined options (see e.g. ECF No. 1 at 5), and given Petitioner has responded in part to the Court's November 5, 2021, Order by paying the filing fee (see ECF No. 5).” (ECF No. 8 at 2.)

It is now past the April 4, 2022, deadline and Petitioner has not responded to the Court's orders requiring him to choose an option to avoid dismissal. (See ECF Nos. 3, 4, 8.) Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a final judgment of dismissal without prejudice in accordance with the Court's February 11, 2022, Order and to close the case. (See ECF No. 8 at 2, citing Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982).)

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Pastor v. Martinez

United States District Court, Southern District of California
Apr 18, 2022
21cv1810 BTM (JLB) (S.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2022)
Case details for

Pastor v. Martinez

Case Details

Full title:MARCO A. PASTOR, Petitioner, v. LOUIS A. MARTINEZ, Warden, Respondent.

Court:United States District Court, Southern District of California

Date published: Apr 18, 2022

Citations

21cv1810 BTM (JLB) (S.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2022)