CATON v. STATE, 4:15CV3121. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20151029e87
Visitors: 12
Filed: Oct. 28, 2015
Latest Update: Oct. 28, 2015
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RICHARD G. KOPF , Senior District Judge . Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing No. 1 ) and a Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Filing No. 5 ). Habeas corpus cases attacking the legality of a person's confinement require the payment of a $5.00 filing fee. 28 U.S.C. 1914(a). However, after considering Petitioner's financial status, provisional leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted and Petitioner is relieved from pay
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RICHARD G. KOPF , Senior District Judge . Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing No. 1 ) and a Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Filing No. 5 ). Habeas corpus cases attacking the legality of a person's confinement require the payment of a $5.00 filing fee. 28 U.S.C. 1914(a). However, after considering Petitioner's financial status, provisional leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted and Petitioner is relieved from payi..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
RICHARD G. KOPF, Senior District Judge.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing No. 1) and a Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Filing No. 5). Habeas corpus cases attacking the legality of a person's confinement require the payment of a $5.00 filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). However, after considering Petitioner's financial status, provisional leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted and Petitioner is relieved from paying the filing fee at this time. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Petitioner's Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Filing No. 5) is granted. The next step in this case is for the court to conduct a preliminary review of the habeas corpus petition in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases. The court will conduct this review in its normal course of business.
*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.
Source: Leagle