Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Haag v. Baker

United States District Court, D. Nevada

October 19, 2017

STEPHEN ANTHONY HAAG, Petitioner,
v.
BAKER, et al., Respondents

          ORDER

          HOWARD D. MCKIBBEN United States District Judge.

         This habeas matter under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 comes before the Court on petitioner's application (ECF No. 1) to proceed in forma pauperis, his motion (ECF No. 3) for a status check, and for initial review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

         Petitioner has not properly commenced the action by submitting a pauper application on the required form with all required attachments.

         Petitioner did not use the correct pauper application form. Under Local Rule LSR 1-1, a litigant seeking to proceed in forma pauperis must apply on the Court's required pauper form. Petitioner instead used a purported form for appealing a federal district court order to a federal court of appeals. This action is not such an appeal.

         Moreover, petitioner did not submit the financial attachments that are required to be submitted with the form. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and Local Rule LSR1-2, a petitioner must attach both a properly executed financial certificate and an inmate account statement for the past six months. Petitioner attached neither, and the financial materials that he did submit are not the correct materials.

         It does not appear that a dismissal of the current improperly-commenced action without prejudice would materially impact the analysis of either a substantial successive petition issue and/or the application of the limitation period in a promptly filed new action or otherwise cause substantial prejudice.[1]

         This improperly-commenced action therefore will be dismissed without prejudice.[2]

         The motion for status check will be denied for failure to follow Local Rule LR IA 7-1, which permits a party to inquire by letter, not motion, ninety days after a matter has been, or should have been submitted.

         IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that the application (ECF No. 1) to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED and that this action shall be DISMISSED without prejudice.

         IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that petitioner's motion (ECF No. 3) for a status check is DENIED for failure to follow Local Rule LR IA 7-1.

         IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is dened. Jurists of reason would not find debatable whether the Court was correct in its dismissal of the action without prejudice on procedural grounds, for the reasons discussed herein.

         IT FURTHER IS ORDERED, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, that the Clerk shall make informal electronic service upon respondents by adding Nevada Attorney General Adam P. Laxalt as counsel for respondents and directing a notice of electronic filing of this order to his office. No response is required from respondents other than to respond to any orders of a reviewing court.

         The Clerk of Court shall send petitioner a copy of his papers in this action, along with copies of the forms and instructions for an inmate pauper application and habeas petition.

         The Clerk of Court shall enter final judgment accordingly, dismissing ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.