(HC) Barnes v. Supreme Court Judges

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaOctober 21, 20212:21-cv-01649California1,113 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ANTOINE DESHAWN BARNES, No. 2:21-cv-01649 JAM GGH P Petitioner, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS SUPREME COURT JUDGES, et. al, Respondents. 16 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254. Petitioner has not, however, filed an in forma pauperis affidavit or paid the required filing fee ($5.00). See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a); 1915(a). Nevertheless, the undersigned will recommend summary dismissal of the pending petition. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254 provides for summary dismissal of a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 also indicates that the court may deny a petition for writ of habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.