Orth v. MCDANIELS et al, No. 3:2009cv00069 - Document 5 (D. Nev. 2009)
Court Description: ORDER that this action shall be DISMISSED without prejudice to the filing of a new petition in a new action on the Court's required Section 2254 form. FURTHER ORD that the P's 3 motion for an order to raise his prison copy credit limit is DENIED. FURTHER ORD that the Clerk shall send P two cps of a Section 2254 petition form and one cpy of the petition that he submitted in this action. Sent to P on 2/13/2009. The Clk shall enter final judgment accordingly, dismissing this action without prejudice. Signed by Judge Brian E. Sandoval on 2/10/2009. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KL) Modified on 2/13/2009 to undo bold (KL).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
. glj; j . -- - Ey E?D /T SE ct p --- ? ëk I Q ?E) g y tN s o l lst--' L g aa Nrlz- sj st , ii ; i-' jf à 1 Fg' yzg sg g . j 2 3 tgryj,pjàgjr(lj; l)J g g j ;vL l? : 1 y - ? t . g/j ;N t jg v ox; y j 4 DE J; ' ' Ft ' Y 5 6 7 8 U NI TED STATES D I STR I CO U RT CT DI STR I O F NEVA DA CT SEAN RO DNEY ORTH, 9 Pett ii , oner 3: c 00069O9- vBESVPC 10 VS. 1l 1 2 1 3 0 RDER E. M CDANI K. ELS,etaI . Res pondent s. l4 1 5 Thi habeasm atercomes bef e t Cour f i talr ew underRul 4 oft Rul s t or he t or nii evi e he es 1 Gov nig Se t 2 4 Ca esa wela ont e p t i er mo i ( ) or or er or s 6 er n c i 25 s s l s h e ion ' ton #3 f an d t aie on t s 1 hi prson copy cr tI i, The fl f has been pai 7 s i edi i t m ing ee i d. 1 8 Orth v. MCDANIELS et al LocalRul LSR 3- r r t a pr se habeas pettonerm us use t Cour' e 1 equies hat o ii t he ts 19 r equied petton f m . Pettonerdi notuse t f m , r ii or ii d he or and he i ead has subm it a ni ynst ted net Doc. 5 20 fv page t ie ypewrten pettont does notcom pl wih t LocalRul Havi r ewed t it ii hat y t he e. ng evi he 21 petton subm it t Cour i notper ii ted, he ts suaded t t cl ms ar such t t cannotbe hat he ai e hat hey 22 pr esent on t r r f m . Pettonerf t di notatach copi oft wrten st e ed he equied or ii urher d t es he i t at 23 cour deci ons concer ng hi conviton,as r r by t petton f m . t si ni s ci equied he ii or 2 4 Th pe iont ef ewi b dim is d wi ou prj diet t efl o a n w p ion e t i her or l e s s e t t e u c o h ing f e et i t l h i t 25 i a new acton on t Coud' r r f m . The Cour not i t s r d t pettoner n i he s equied or t es n hi egar hat ii 2 al ge t att e Su eme Co to Nev a a f me t j dgmen ofc vit on di t 6 l sh h e pr ur f ad fi d he u r t on c i on r ec 27 appeal Sept ber25, on em 2008.It doesnotappeart a di i al t pr t hus hat sm ss of he esentacton i 2 wih t e u c wi r li a p omp l-i d n p t i i a n ac i b n tme- r 8 t ou pr j die l esutn r t fe ew e ion n ew t eig i bared. l y l t on Dockets.Justia.com 1 The m otont r se pettoners prsoncopy cr tI iwi be deni Pettonerseeks i o ai ii ' i edi i t l m l ed. ii 2 t have hi copycr tImir sed byan addii $240. ' Pettonercan copyand fl o s edi i t ai tonal 00 ' so ii i e 3 docum ent i suppod of t petton. Att ver out ,t e i no r r s n ' he ii he y set her s equiementt t hat he 4 pettonerfl m assi set ofdocument i suppor ofa habeas petton. Att begi ng ii i e ve s sn t ii he nni 5 oft case,he m us fl a petton and copi oft st e cour w r en deci ons concer ng he ti e ii es he at t i d si ni 6 hi convi i whi i t s i ance woul be a copy oft st e supr e coud' or of s cton, ch n hi nst d he at em s der 7 afim anc on diec appeal I t Cour or sser ce and a r f r e r t . f he t der vi esponse, he Coud wil r t t ldiec 8 t r he esponden st fl t r evantpodi of he st ecour r d.M or t o i he el e ons t at t ecor eover t pettoner , he ii 9 pai t flng f i t s ac i and he t i notpr d he i i ee n hi ton, hus s oceedi i f m a paupers. Pettoner ng n or i ii 1 acc di y has notsubm it t fnanci cedii e fom t pauperf m and a st emen 0 or ngl ted he i al fcat r he or at t 11 ofhi i s nmat ac e countf t pastsi mont or he x hs. He t ef e has notest i her or abl shed t he i hat s 1 unabl t pay f hi own copy cos s,i udi any unpai copy cr tbal 2 e o or s t ncl ng d edi ance owed t t o he 1 i iuton. 3 nstt i 1 4 I THEREFORE I ORDERED t a t sa t s l eDI SSED wi t e u c T S h t hi c i halb SMI on t prj die hou 15 t t fl ofa new petton i a new acton on t Coud' r r Sec i 2254 f m . o he ing i ii n i he s equied ton or 1 6 I FURTHER I ORDERED t at he p ion ' mo i ( f anor er o r s hi T S h t et i ers ton #3) or t d t aie s 1 prson copy cr tI i i DENI 7 i edi i t s m ED. 1 8 I FURTHER I O RDERED t t Cl k ofCoud shalsend pet i T S hat he er l ionert copi of t wo es 19 a secton 2254 petton f m and one copy oft petton t he subm it i t s acton. i ii or he ii hat ted n hi i 2 0 TheCl ko Coursh l t fn jdgmen ac or n y, s s igt sa t wi ou er f t alenerialu t c digl dimisn hi ci t t on h 21 prj die. eu c 22 DATED:Thi 10t day ofFebr y, 2009. s h uar 23 24 25 2 6 Uni St es Di rc Judge t ed at stit 27 28 - 2-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
