Kalim Sibomana v. Chestnut

D. Nevada

Kalim Sibomana v. Chestnut

DecidedJanuary 26, 2023

Docket2:23-cv-00120

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Kalim Sibomana v. Chestnut, (D. Nev. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 Lewis Abdul Kalim Sibomana, Case No.: 2:23-cv-00120-JAD-VCF

5 Petitioner, Order Requiring a Motion to Proceed In 6 v. Forma Pauperis or Payment of the Filing Fee 7 Luis Rosa Jr.,1 Nevada Southern Detention Center Warden, 8 Respondent. 9

10 11 Petitioner Lewis Abdul Kalim Sibomana, a federal prisoner, has submitted a petition for 12 writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.2 Sibomana has not filed an application to proceed 13 in forma pauperis (IFP) or paid the filing fee.3 As a result, this matter has not been properly 14 commenced. Rather than dismiss this action without prejudice, I give Sibomana 30 days to 15 either pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit a complete IFP application with all required 16 documentation. 17 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Sibomana has until February 25, 2023, to file an 18 application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, accompanied by a signed financial certificate 19 and a statement of his inmate account. In the alternative, Sibomana can, within the time allotted, 20 1 Luis Rosa Jr., the warden of the Nevada Southern Detention Center, is substituted for 21 Christopher Chestnut as the respondent in this case. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426,435 (2004) (holding that the default rule is that petitioner’s current custodian is the proper respondent 22 in habeas cases). 2 ECF No. 1-1. 23 3 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and Local Rules LSR 1-1, 1-2. 1}| pay the filing fee of five dollars from his inmate account and arrange to have a copy of this order attached to the check for the filing fee. Sibomana’s failure to timely comply with this order will 3] result in the dismissal of this action and denial of any motions without prejudice and without further advance notice. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to send Sibomana the 6|| form for an incarcerated person to file an application form to proceed in forma pauperis. 7 Dated: January 26, 2023 g 7S IK re Teaniler A. Dorsey 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

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

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 Lewis Abdul Kalim Sibomana, Case No.: 2:23-cv-00120-JAD-VCF

5 Petitioner, Order Requiring a Motion to Proceed In 6 v. Forma Pauperis or Payment of the Filing Fee 7 Luis Rosa Jr.,1 Nevada Southern Detention Center Warden, 8 Respondent. 9

10 11 Petitioner Lewis Abdul Kalim Sibomana, a federal prisoner, has submitted a petition for 12 writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.2 Sibomana has not filed an application to proceed 13 in forma pauperis (IFP) or paid the filing fee.3 As a result, this matter has not been properly 14 commenced. Rather than dismiss this action without prejudice, I give Sibomana 30 days to 15 either pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit a complete IFP application with all required 16 documentation. 17 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Sibomana has until February 25, 2023, to file an 18 application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, accompanied by a signed financial certificate 19 and a statement of his inmate account. In the alternative, Sibomana can, within the time allotted, 20 1 Luis Rosa Jr., the warden of the Nevada Southern Detention Center, is substituted for 21 Christopher Chestnut as the respondent in this case. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426,435 (2004) (holding that the default rule is that petitioner’s current custodian is the proper respondent 22 in habeas cases). 2 ECF No. 1-1. 23 3 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and Local Rules LSR 1-1, 1-2. 1}| pay the filing fee of five dollars from his inmate account and arrange to have a copy of this order attached to the check for the filing fee. Sibomana’s failure to timely comply with this order will 3] result in the dismissal of this action and denial of any motions without prejudice and without further advance notice. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to send Sibomana the 6|| form for an incarcerated person to file an application form to proceed in forma pauperis. 7 Dated: January 26, 2023 g 7S IK re Teaniler A. Dorsey 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Kalim Sibomana v. Chestnut, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kalim-sibomana-v-chestnut-nvd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack