Harris v. Jones
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:23-cv-02434
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Judge Martinez-Olguin dismissed Harris v. Jones without prejudice because Harris did not submit the required petition form or pay the fee.
David D. Harris’s custody challenge was dismissed without prejudice; Gena Jones was the named respondent.
What happened
In Harris v. Jones, David D. Harris filed a custody challenge that was opened as a habeas case and later transferred to the Northern District of California.
The clerk told Harris to submit a completed petition form and either pay the filing fee or submit a completed application to proceed without paying it. He did neither within the required 28 days.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin dismissed the case without prejudice, closed the file, and said any motion to reopen must include the completed petition form and either the full fee or the completed application.
The detailed version
- Harris v. Jones · No. 3:23-cv-02434
- Martinez-Olguin
- Sept. 20, 2023
Background
David D. Harris, an inmate, filed a document in the Eastern District of California that was opened as a habeas corpus action, meaning a case challenging a person’s custody. The action was transferred to the Northern District of California. The case was later reassigned from a magistrate judge to Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin.
After the transfer, the clerk notified Harris that the case could not proceed unless he filed a completed habeas petition form within 28 days. The clerk also instructed him to pay the filing fee or return a completed application to proceed without paying the fee.
Ruling
More than 28 days passed, and Harris had not filed the petition on the correct form. He also had not paid the filing fee or submitted the required application. The court therefore dismissed the action without prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the file. The order states that any motion to reopen must include the petition on the correct form and either the full filing fee or a completed application to proceed without paying the fee. The court did not address the substance of Harris’s custody challenge.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.