Davis v. Jones

D. Alaska

Davis v. Jones

DecidedJanuary 6, 2021

Docket3:20-cv-00274

StatusUnknown

This text of Davis v. Jones (Davis v. Jones) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Alaska primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Davis v. Jones, (D. Alaska 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

BENJAMIN DAVIS, Petitioner, No. 3:20-cv-00274-JKS vs. ORDER OF DISMISSAL STATE OF ALASKA, Respondent.

On April 22, 2020, Benjamin Davis, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Docket No. 1 (“Petition”). The Court noted that his Petition was deficient because Davis did not pay the $5.00 filing fee for maintaining habeas actions in federal court, or file an Application to Waive Prepayment of the Filing Fee. Docket No. 2. Davis subsequently moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), which, if granted, would allow him to maintain this action without paying the filing fee. Docket No. 3. After reviewing Davis’s Petition and the IFP motion, the Court noted that his IFP application was deficient because he did not include “a certificate from the warden or other appropriate officer of the place of confinement showing the amount of money or securities that [he] has in any account in the institution,” as required by Rule 3(a)(2) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings in the U.S. District Courts. Docket No. 4 at 7. The Court ordered Davis to submit either the $5.00 filing fee for maintaining this action or a valid and complete Application to Waive -1- Prepayment of the Filing Fee by December 30, 2020. Docket No. 6 at 3. To date, Davis has not complied with this Order. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 1. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 2. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. 3. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter final judgment in this case. 4. The Court declines to issue a Certificate of Appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668, 705 (2004) (“To obtain a certificate of appealability, a prisoner must ‘demonstrat[e] that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” (quoting Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003))). Any further request for a Certificate of Appealability must also be addressed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. See FED. R. APP. P. 22(b); 9TH CIR. R. 22-1. Dated at Anchorage, Alaska this 6th day of January, 2021. s/James K. Singleton, Jr. JAMES K. SINGLETON, JR. Senior United States District Judge

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

BENJAMIN DAVIS, Petitioner, No. 3:20-cv-00274-JKS vs. ORDER OF DISMISSAL STATE OF ALASKA, Respondent.

On April 22, 2020, Benjamin Davis, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Docket No. 1 (“Petition”). The Court noted that his Petition was deficient because Davis did not pay the $5.00 filing fee for maintaining habeas actions in federal court, or file an Application to Waive Prepayment of the Filing Fee. Docket No. 2. Davis subsequently moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), which, if granted, would allow him to maintain this action without paying the filing fee. Docket No. 3. After reviewing Davis’s Petition and the IFP motion, the Court noted that his IFP application was deficient because he did not include “a certificate from the warden or other appropriate officer of the place of confinement showing the amount of money or securities that [he] has in any account in the institution,” as required by Rule 3(a)(2) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings in the U.S. District Courts. Docket No. 4 at 7. The Court ordered Davis to submit either the $5.00 filing fee for maintaining this action or a valid and complete Application to Waive -1- Prepayment of the Filing Fee by December 30, 2020. Docket No. 6 at 3. To date, Davis has not complied with this Order. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 1. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 2. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. 3. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter final judgment in this case. 4. The Court declines to issue a Certificate of Appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668, 705 (2004) (“To obtain a certificate of appealability, a prisoner must ‘demonstrat[e] that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” (quoting Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003))). Any further request for a Certificate of Appealability must also be addressed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. See FED. R. APP. P. 22(b); 9TH CIR. R. 22-1. Dated at Anchorage, Alaska this 6th day of January, 2021. s/James K. Singleton, Jr. JAMES K. SINGLETON, JR. Senior United States District Judge

-2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Davis v. Jones, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-jones-akd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack