IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 1, 2009
LAMAR HALL, PLAINTIFF,
JUDGE SAMOHTA, DEFENDANTS.
On June 3, 2009, the court dismissed this action because plaintiff's complaint failed to state a cognizable claim for relief in light of the holding in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). The court also advised plaintiff that, if he wished to overturn his underlying state court conviction, pursuing a writ of habeas corpus would be his sole remedy. Plaintiff has since filed what appears to be a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Plaintiff is advised that this civil rights action is closed, and any documents filed by plaintiff since the closing date will be disregarded.
If plaintiff wishes to proceed with habeas corpus proceedings, he is advised that he must file new action by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus as required by Rule 3 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases. Plaintiff must also either pay the required filing fee or file an application requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(a). If plaintiff files a new action, he should not list this case number on his petition.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff the court's form for filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus and the application to proceed in forma pauperis by a prisoner.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.