United States District Court, Northern District of California
April 1, 2003
EDWIN ARTURO AMADOR PARRA, PETITIONER,
SAN MATEO COUNTY, RESPONDENT
The opinion of the court was delivered by: William Alsup, United States District Judge.
DENIAL OF LEAVE TO PROCEED IN PAUPERIS; DISMISSAL (Doc 3)
Plaintiff, an inmate at the San Mateo County Jail, has filed a document headed "Petition for a Writ of Certiorari." It appears that he is attempting to contend that the information by which he was charged with the crime for which he is currently incarcerated was not valid. Petitioner also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Bills of review (which is what a writ of certiorari is) and bills in the nature of a bill of review have been abolished in the federal district courts, along with many other common-law writs. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). Petitioner's effort to challenge the legality of his incarceration must be brought by way of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.*fn1 Because of the potential prejudice to petitioner if this case were treated as a habeas case, it will be dismissed without prejudice. See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 1995).
Leave to proceed in forma pauperis (doc 3) is DENIED. No fee is due. For the foregoing reasons, petitioner's claims are DISMISSED without prejudice.
The Clerk shall close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.