Holman ( 2020 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 In re ROYLUND KANE HOLMAN, 4 Case No. 20-cv-03083-YGR (PR) 5 ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT 6 PREJUDICE 7 8 9 This action was reassigned from a magistrate judge to the undersigned in light of a recent 10 Ninth Circuit decision.! On May 5, 2020, Petitioner, who is currently in custody at the San 11 Francisco County Jail, filed a letter with the Court in the instant matter, which was opened as a 12 || habeas corpus action. On the same day the action was filed, the Clerk of the Court sent a notice to 13 || Petitioner informing him that his action could not go forward until he filed with the Court a habeas v 14 || corpus petition form, completed in full, within twenty-eight days or his action would be dismissed. 15 || The Clerk also sent Plaintiff another notice directing him to either pay the filing fee or file a || completed prisoner’s in forma pauperis (“IFP”) application within twenty-eight days or his action || would be dismissed. 18 More than twenty-eight days have passed, and Petitioner has not filed a completed petition 19 || form. Neither has he paid the filing fee nor returned a completed IFP application. 20 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 21 The Clerk shall close the file. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 || Dated: August 4, 2020 NNE GONZALEZ ROGERS 24 nited States District Judge 25 26 27 ' Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 503 (9th Cir. 2017) (magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction 2g || to dismiss case on initial screening because unserved defendants had not consented to proceed before magistrate judge).