Kirkpatrick v. Samuel
- Jon Tigar
- 4:24-cv-08609
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Kirkpatrick v. Samuel, Judge Tigar dismissed the habeas petition for failure to pay the filing fee or request a fee waiver, but the order conflicts on prejudice.
William Kirkpatrick’s federal petition was dismissed after he failed to pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed without paying it. The opinion also gave guidance about the proper court and method for any future challenge.
What happened
In Kirkpatrick v. Samuel, William Kirkpatrick asked the federal court to review a September 18, 2024 California Supreme Court order. The court also noted that a challenge to his state conviction would generally need to be filed in the federal district covering the place of conviction.
The court had required Kirkpatrick to pay the $5 filing fee or submit an application to proceed without paying it by December 31, 2024. He did neither. The court therefore dismissed the action for failing to correct that filing problem and did not decide the underlying challenge.
Judge Jon S. Tigar entered the dismissal on March 5, 2025. The order first says the action is dismissed with prejudice, but its conclusion says it is dismissed without prejudice, so the order is unclear about whether refiling is barred.
The detailed version
- Kirkpatrick v. Samuel · No. 4:24-cv-08609
- Jon Tigar
- Mar. 5, 2025
Background
William Kirkpatrick filed a petition asking the federal court to review a September 18, 2024 order of the California Supreme Court. The federal court sent him notice that the filing was deficient because he had not paid the $5 filing fee or submitted an application to proceed without paying the fee.
The court gave him until December 31, 2024, to pay the fee or file a complete application. The deadline passed, and the opinion states that he did neither.
Court’s reasoning
The court dismissed the action because Kirkpatrick failed to pay the filing fee or file the required application. It did not reach the merits of his challenge to the state-court decision.
The court also made additional observations about a possible future filing. It stated that a federal district court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction—that is, legal authority—to review a state-court decision of the type Kirkpatrick identified, and that review of such a decision must be sought from the United States Supreme Court. The court further stated that a federal petition challenging a state conviction or sentence should be filed in the Central District of California, which it identified as the district where Kirkpatrick’s conviction was obtained.
Disposition
The opinion contains conflicting statements about the effect of the dismissal. Near the beginning, it says the action is “DISMISSED with prejudice.” The discussion says the action is dismissed for failure to pay the fee or file the application. But the conclusion says the court “DISMISSES this action without prejudice.” Because both statements appear in the opinion, the applicable prejudice designation is unclear.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.