From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stephen v. Miller

United States District Court, E.D. California
Dec 22, 2010
No. 2:10-cv-2960 JFM (HC) (E.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2010)

Opinion

No. 2:10-cv-2960 JFM (HC).

December 22, 2010


ORDER


Petitioner, a state prisoner at Valley State Prison for Women, commenced this action by filing a document styled as a motion to toll time to file a writ of habeas corpus. By order filed November 10, 2010, petitioner was granted a period of thirty days in which file a petition that complies with the requirements of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice, as well as an application to proceed in forma pauperis or the filing fee in the amount of $5.00.

Petitioner, the only party to appear in this action, has consented to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). See Consent filed November 18, 2010.

Petitioner was cautioned that failure to comply with this order would a result in a recommendations that this matter be dismissed. In view of petitioner's subsequent consent to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), this matter will be dismissed by order of this court.

The thirty day period has now expired, and petitioner has not filed a petition or an application to proceed in forma pauperis or the filing fee, nor has she otherwise responded to the court's order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that action is dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).

DATED: December 20, 2010.


Summaries of

Stephen v. Miller

United States District Court, E.D. California
Dec 22, 2010
No. 2:10-cv-2960 JFM (HC) (E.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2010)
Case details for

Stephen v. Miller

Case Details

Full title:BONNIE K. STEPHEN, Petitioner, v. W. MILLER, Respondent

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

Date published: Dec 22, 2010

Citations

No. 2:10-cv-2960 JFM (HC) (E.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2010)