Smith v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al
| James Earl Smith |
| California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (RJDCF) |
| 3:2011cv00584 |
| March 23, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of California |
| San Diego Office |
| San Diego |
| Cathy Ann Bencivengo |
| Dana M. Sabraw |
| General |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
8
ORDER denying in Forma Pauperis Application and Dismissing Case without prejudice. If Petitioner wishes to challenge the fact or duration of his confinement by attacking his state court conviction, he must, no later than June 14, 2011: (1) file a Fir st Amended Petition and (2) pay the $5.00 filing fee OR submit adequate proof of his inability to pay the fee. If he wishes to challenge the conditions of his prison life, he must, no later than June 14, 2011: (1) file a new civil complaint purs uant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 which will be given a new civil case number, and (2) pay the $350 filing fee OR file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Dana M. Sabraw on 4/5/11.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(Copy of Order, IFP form, blank First Amended 2254 Petition and 1983 Complaint form mailed to Petitioner)(lao)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
