Patton v. Nevada, 2:12-cv-01437-JCM-GWF. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20190328e03
Visitors: 5
Filed: Mar. 26, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2019
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. MAHAN , District Judge . On February 28, 2019, the court denied a petition for writ of mandamus improperly filed in this action. (ECF No. 57). Because it appears that petitioner may not have intended for his petition to be filed in this action and instead may have sought to commence a new action, the clerk of court shall file the petition for writ of mandamus (ECF No. 56) in a new action, along with any additional filings petitioner has submitted in connection with the petiti
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. MAHAN , District Judge . On February 28, 2019, the court denied a petition for writ of mandamus improperly filed in this action. (ECF No. 57). Because it appears that petitioner may not have intended for his petition to be filed in this action and instead may have sought to commence a new action, the clerk of court shall file the petition for writ of mandamus (ECF No. 56) in a new action, along with any additional filings petitioner has submitted in connection with the petitio..
More
ORDER
JAMES C. MAHAN, District Judge.
On February 28, 2019, the court denied a petition for writ of mandamus improperly filed in this action. (ECF No. 57). Because it appears that petitioner may not have intended for his petition to be filed in this action and instead may have sought to commence a new action, the clerk of court shall file the petition for writ of mandamus (ECF No. 56) in a new action, along with any additional filings petitioner has submitted in connection with the petition. Petitioner is advised that the filing of his petition in a new action does not absolve him of the responsibility of either paying the applicable filing fee or filing an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
