Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
Kenneth Hannibal Hart v. Eric Holder
December 12, 2012
KENNETH HANNIBAL HART
ERIC HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Landya McCafferty United States Magistrate Judge
Kenneth Hannibal Hart has filed a civil rights complaint (doc. no. 1) in this court. Hart's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (doc. no. 2) is pending, as is Hart's motion to recuse (doc. no. 3), seeking recusal of all of the judges and clerks who have previously worked on any of Hart's previous actions before this court. No action will be taken on either the complaint or the recusal request until Hart completes his in forma pauperis application or pays his filing fee.
Presently before the court for consideration is Hart's "Motion to United States Magistrate Judge" (doc. no. 6). The motion seeks certain documents and forms, and answers to procedural questions concerning this action. Hart also appears to assert a general right to seek habeas relief, and requests an "advisory opinion of truth." For the reasons stated herein, the motion is denied.
1. Document and Form Request
Hart requests copies of "state habeas applications," in forma pauperis forms, and a pro se litigation guide. This court cannot provide Hart with state court applications, or other documents for filing in the state court. However, to the extent Hart is seeking federal forms, the clerk's office, on December 12, 2012, mailed Hart the documents he requested: two blank forms for filing a habeas action in this court; two blank in forma pauperis applications; and one copy of this court's Pro Se Litigant Guide ("December 12 letter") (doc. no. 7).
In the December 12 letter, the Clerk's office responded to each of Hart's procedural questions regarding the docketing and handling of habeas petitions. To the extent Hart seeks an opinion from the court as to whether he is entitled to a "discussion" or "conference" with the court, there are no issues pending before the court requiring a hearing at this time, and the court declines to comment on whether any issue that may arise in this case in the future would warrant a hearing at a later date.
For the foregoing reasons, the "Motion to United States Magistrate Judge" (doc. no. 6) is denied, as the relief requested has been satisfied by the mailing of the December 12 letter (doc. no. 7) or is not appropriate for consideration prior to Hart either paying the filing fee in this matter or completing an in forma pauperis application.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw ...
Buy This Entire Record For