Rockhold

Rockhold v. Gore

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaJanuary 10, 20223:21-cv-00835California1,828 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MICHAEL ANDREW ROCKHOLD, Case No. 21-cv-835-MMA (MSB)

Petitioner,

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERS,

DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT

WILLIAM GORE, et al.,

PREJUDICE AND WITH LEAVE TO

Respondents. AMEND, AND DIRECTING CLERK

TO UPDATE PETITIONER’S

ADDRESS

17 [Doc. No. 5] 18 19 On April 28, 2021, Michael Andrew Rockhold (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Doc. No. 1 (“Petition”). On May 7, 2021, the Court dismissed the case without prejudice and with leave to amend because Petitioner had failed to: (1) either pay the $5.00 filing fee or move to proceed in forma pauperis; and (2) allege a federal constitutional violation. Doc. No. 2. The Court granted Petitioner until July 13, 2021, to either pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit adequate proof of his inability to pay the fee and file a First Amended…

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.