TURNER v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Case No. 2:17-cv-00696-APG-CWH.

JOHN TURNER, Petitioner, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al., Respondents.

United States District Court, D. Nevada.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Nature of Suit: 530 Habeas Corpus (General)
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

John Turner, Petitioner, Pro Se.


ORDER

ANDREW P. GORDON, District Judge.

This action is a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by a Nevada state prisoner. Neither a filing fee nor an application to proceed in forma pauperis was submitted with the petition. When filing a habeas action, petitioner must either submit the $5.00 filing fee for habeas petition or an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Due to the lack of an in forma pauperis application or filing fee, the present action will be dismissed without prejudice to the filing of a new petition in a new action with a pauper application with all required attachments. It does not appear from the papers presented that a dismissal without prejudice would result in a promptly-filed new petition being untimely. In this regard, petitioner at all times remains responsible for calculating the running of the limitations period as applied to his case and properly commencing a timely-filed habeas corpus action.

IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice to the filing of a new petition in a new action.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall send petitioner the following: (1) two copies of an in forma pauperis application form for a prisoner and one copy of the instructions for the same, (2) two copies of a blank 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition form and one copy of instructions for the same; and (3) the petition received on March 8, 2017.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner may file a new petition in a new action, but may not file further documents in this action.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED. Reasonable jurists would not find the dismissal of the improperly-commenced action without prejudice to be debatable or wrong.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases