Stansberry v. Entry U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge John D. Roberts

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
LEE ROY J. STANSBERRY,
Plaintiff,
v.
ENTRY U.S. District Court, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:22-cv-00257-SLG
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR DEFICIENT FILING
On November 21, 2022, Lee Roy J. Stansberry, a self-represented prisoner,
filed a Complaint titled “Writ of Habeas Corpus Pro Bono” and a copy of a
Department of Corrections form titled “Offender Trust Account Request for
Disbursement of Funds.”1 On the form, Mr. Stansberry requests $750 be
disbursed from his offender account to Rey Jones” for “Writ of Habeas Corpus Pro
Bono Lawyer Filing Fee to Rey Jones.”2 The Court sent a Notice of Electronic
Filing (“NEF”) confirming receipt of the filing to Mr. Stansberry, which was returned
as undeliverable.3 A notation on the returned envelope indicates Mr. Stansberry
refused to accept the mail.4
1 Docket 1.
2 Docket 1 at 5.
3 Docket 2.
4 Id.
Case 3:22-cv-00257-SLG Document 3 Filed 12/15/22 Page 1 of 3

Case No. 3:22-cv-00257-SLG, Stansberry v. Entry U.S. District Court
Order of Dismissal for Deficient Filing
Page 2 of 3
To properly bring a habeas corpus action, all claims must be included on the
Court’s form, Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(AO2254) (available online or at the Clerk’s office).5 Additionally, the Petitioner
must pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit a fully completed and signed Application to
Waive Prepayment of the Filing Fee (Form PS10).6 Mr. Stansberry has not
included either, so this filing is deficient.
The Court takes Judicial Notice7 that Mr. Stansberry has recently filed four
other cases with this Court that have also not included the filing fee or an
application to waive prepayment of the filing fee.8 The Orders notifying Mr.
Stansberry of the filings were deficient have all been returned to the Court as
undeliverable mail. In the interests of judicial economy, the Court must dismiss
5 Local Habeas Rule 2.1.
6 Local Habeas Rule 2.1.
7 Judicial notice is the “court’s acceptance, for purposes of convenience and without requiring a
party’s proof, of a well-known and indisputable fact; the court’s power to accept such a fact.”
Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). A court can take judicial notice of its own files and records.
Fed. R. Evid. 201.
8 See Stansberry v. Enter State of Alaska Govs Dunleavy, Case No. 3:22-cv-214-SLG,
(Returned/Undeliverable Mail 10/14/2022), Docket 3 (Deficient Filing Order dated 10/17/2022),
Docket 4 (Returned/Undeliverable Mail 11/01/2022); Stansberry v. Entry U.S. District Court, Case
No. 3:22-cv-00223-JMK, Docket 2 (Returned/Undeliverable Mail 10/24/2022), Docket 3 (Deficient
Filing Order dated 11/02/2022), Docket 4 (Returned/Undeliverable Mail 11/15/2022); Stansberry
v. Entry U.S. District Court, Case No. 3:22-cv-00231-JMK, Docket 2 (Deficient Filing Order dated
11/02/2022), Docket 3 (Returned/Undeliverable Mail 11/15/2022); Stansberry v. Enter Alaska Dept
of Revenue, Case No. 3:22-cv-211-RRB; Docket 2 (Returned/Undeliverable Mail 10/17/2022),
Docket 3 (Deficient Filing Order dated 11/03/2022), Docket 4 (Returned/Undeliverable Mail
11/15/2022).
Case 3:22-cv-00257-SLG Document 3 Filed 12/15/22 Page 2 of 3

Case No. 3:22-cv-00257-SLG, Stansberry v. Entry U.S. District Court
Order of Dismissal for Deficient Filing
Page 3 of 3
this case without leave to amend, but without prejudice should Mr. Stansberry wish
to refile a proper petition.
In light of the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the filing at Docket 1 is
DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter a judgment
accordingly.
DATED this 15th day of December, 2022, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:22-cv-00257-SLG Document 3 Filed 12/15/22 Page 3 of 3