Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Snipes v. Tilton

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


February 27, 2008

BEN ALAN SNIPES, PETITIONER,
v.
JAMES E. TILTON, WARDEN, RESPONDENT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia U.S. Magistrate Judge United States District Court

Order Denying Motion to Supplement [Doc. No. 45]

Petitioner has filed a Motion to Supplement, however, this 'motion' does not seek to supplement, but rather requests that the Court conduct a search for an amended petition he states was filed with the Court on November 1, 2007. The Court refers Petitioner to this Court's Order of February 26, 2008, which instructed the Petitioner to file an amended petition that sets forth all of the facts upon which the claims in the Petition rely. This does not mean that the Petitioner should continue to file motion after motion to supplement, rather it is directing the Petitioner to amend his petition to include all of the relevant facts and necessary support for the claims contained therein, without the excessive references to 'exhibits' or other documents previously submitted or attached to prior petitions.

Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases states that the petition must "specify all grounds for relief available to the petitioner [and] state the facts supporting each ground." Rule 2(c), 28 U.S.C. § see also Boehme v. Maxwell, 423 F.2d 1056, 2058 (9th Cir. 1970). While courts should liberally interpret pro se pleadings with leniency and understanding, this should not place upon the reviewing court the entire onus of ferreting out grounds for relief.*fn1 In order to satisfy Rule 2(c), facts must be stated in the petition with sufficient detail to enable the court to determine, from the face of the petition, whether further habeas corpus review is warranted. Adams v. Armontrout, 897 F.2d 332, 334 (8th Cir. 1990).

All deadlines set by the Court in its February 26, 2008 Order remain as set, with the Petitioner being required to file motion to amend the Petition and a Second Amended Petition in compliance with Rule 2(c) on or before March 24, 2008.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.