From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Ricolcol

United States District Court, Central District of California
Dec 5, 2024
5:24-cv-02160-SB-SP (C.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2024)

Opinion

5:24-cv-02160-SB-SP

12-05-2024

GLENN ARTHUR SMITH, JR., Petitioner, v. WARDEN E. RICOLCOL, Respondent.


ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PAY THE FILING FEE

Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. United States District Judge

Petitioner Glenn Arthur Smith, Jr., proceeding pro se, filed a habeas petition on October 7, 2024, without paying the required filing fee or submitting a request to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). Dkt. No. 1. On October 10, 2024, the clerk's office notified Petitioner of the deficiency, provided an IFP form application (CV-60P), directed Petitioner to either pay the filing fee or submit an IFP request within 30 days, and noted that failure to do so within 30 days may result in dismissal. Dkt. No. 2. A mailing to Petitioner providing him with the clerk's notice was returned undelivered November 4, 2024. Dkt. No. 4. However, after the deadline passed, on November 27, 2024, Petitioner filed a letter with the Court that provides his correct address. Dkt. No. 5. He still has not paid the filing fee or filed an IFP request. By no later than January 3, 2025, Petitioner is ordered to either pay the filing fee or file form CV-60P requesting to proceed IFP. Failure to do so will result in the dismissal of this case without prejudice.


Summaries of

Smith v. Ricolcol

United States District Court, Central District of California
Dec 5, 2024
5:24-cv-02160-SB-SP (C.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2024)
Case details for

Smith v. Ricolcol

Case Details

Full title:GLENN ARTHUR SMITH, JR., Petitioner, v. WARDEN E. RICOLCOL, Respondent.

Court:United States District Court, Central District of California

Date published: Dec 5, 2024

Citations

5:24-cv-02160-SB-SP (C.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2024)