Folsom v. Beckham County Court

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Oklahoma
DecidedMarch 4, 2022
Docket5:21-cv-00582
StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook
Folsom v. Beckham County Court, (W.D. Okla. 2022).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

GLEN FOLSOM, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-21-582-G ) BECKHAM COUNTY COURT et al., ) ) Respondents. )

ORDER Petitioner Glen Folsom, a state prisoner appearing pro se, initiated this habeas corpus action in June 2021. This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Shon T. Erwin for initial proceedings in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Currently pending before the Court are Petitioner’s Applications for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. Nos. 2, 22). On October 8, 2021, Judge Erwin issued a Report and Recommendation (“R. & R.,” Doc. No. 25), recommending that Petitioner’s Applications be denied due to Petitioner being in possession of sufficient funds to pay the $5.00 filing fee. See id. at 1; see also Doc. No. 22, at 4 (prison official certifying that Petitioner has $14.15 in his facility savings account). On February 4, 2022, Petitioner submitted a filing (Doc. No. 35) that the Court liberally construes as an Objection to the R. & R. Pursuant to controlling authority, the Court reviews de novo the portions of the R. & R. to which specific objections have been made. See United States v. 2121 E. 30th St., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Even liberally construed, Petitioner’s Objection fails to show any error in Judge Erwin’s finding that Petitioner possesses sufficient funds to pay his $5.00 filing fee. To the contrary, Petitioner states that he has requested that prison officials send this payment to the Court. See Pet’r’s Obj. at 1. Further, nothing in Petitioner’s Objection undermines Judge Erwin’s conclusion that Petitioner is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis in this matter. CONCLUSION Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 25) is ADOPTED in its entirety. Petitioner’s Applications for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. Nos. 2, 22) are DENIED. Petitioner is DIRECTED to pay the $5.00 filing fee within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order. Failure to pay the filing fee within the time prescribed shall be cause for dismissal of this action without prejudice. See LCvR 3.3(e). If Petitioner encounters difficulty in having the $5.00 payment transmitted to the Court, he may present this Order to the relevant facility officials. This matter shall remain referred to Judge Erwin in accordance with the initial order of referral. IT IS SO ORDERED this 4th day of March, 2022.

(Barba B. Kadota United States District Judge

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

Related

United States v. 2121 East 30th Street
73 F.3d 1057 (Tenth Circuit, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Folsom v. Beckham County Court, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/folsom-v-beckham-county-court-okwd-2022.