Peterson

(HC) Barton v. Peterson

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaApril 14, 20222:22-cv-00616California1,235 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WILLIAM BARTON, No. 2:22-cv-0616 KJN P Petitioner, v. ORDER JOSIE GOSTELO, et al.,1 Respondents. 16 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, but petitioner did not file an in forma pauperis affidavit or pay the required filing fee ($5.00). See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a); 1915(a). Therefore, petitioner is provided the opportunity to either submit the appropriate affidavit in support of a request to proceed in forma pauperis or submit the appropriate filing fee. This action cannot proceed unless petitioner is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis or pays the filing fee. Insufficient Petition In addition, the petition is unclear. Although petitioner used the form for filing a § 2241 petition, in the relief section of his pleading, petitioner claims to seek relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is housed in a state prison…

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.