Howard

Howard v. Atchley

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMay 21, 20204:20-cv-01681California542 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JUSTIN HOWARD, Case No. 20-cv-01681-HSG

8 Petitioner, ORDER OF DISMISSAL 9 v.

10 M. ATCHLEY, 11 Respondent.

12 13 On February 26, 2020,1 petitioner filed with the Court a request that his federal petition be 14 held in abeyance until he exhausted his ineffective assistance of counsel claim in state court. Dkt. 15 No. 1. However, petitioner did not attach a habeas petition to his request and there is no record of 16 any habeas petition filed by petitioner in the Northern District of California. On March 9, 2020, 17 the day the request was docketed in this Court and this action opened, the Court informed 18 petitioner that this action was deficient because he had not submitted a petition on the proper form 19 and had not paid the filing fee or submitted an in forma pauperis application. Dkt. Nos. 3, 4, 7. 20 Petitioner was instructed to file, within twenty-eight days of the date of the order, a completed 21 petition on the proper form and either pay the filing fee or…

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.