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.

George v. Walker

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


January 16, 2009

KEENAN GEORGE, PETITIONER,
v.
J. WALKER, RESPONDENT.

OPINION AND ORDER ON A FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS

On October 24, 2008, petitioner Keenan George, a state inmate proceeding pro se, filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which this Court dismissed with leave to amend, explaining that the petition was prolix, or much too long, and impossible to decipher, and ordered petitioner to file a First Amended Petition. On October 8, 2008, petitioner filed a First Amended Petition, which this Court also dismissed with leave under Rule 12(e), due to petitioner's failure to comply with the Court's Order of October 24, 2008, and ordered petitioner to file a Second Amended Petition within thirty days.

However, petitioner has not filed a Second Amended Petition.

DISCUSSION

Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts ("Rules") provides that the Rules govern the procedure in the federal district courts on an application under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by a person in custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court. 28 foll. U.S.C. § 2254, Rule 1. Rule 2(c) requires that the petition shall specify all grounds for relief, as well as the facts supporting each ground. Id. Here, the First Amended Petition's pages are numbered 1-6, 1-35, 1-87 and 7-8, rather than consecutively. Moreover, it is unclear exactly which claims petitioner is raising since, for example, there appear to be two claims denominated "Ground Three," with one appearing at page 4 and the other at page 62. Similarly, there appear to be unnumbered claims, such as the claim appearing at the top of page 81. For all these reasons, the Court dismissed the First Amended Petition with leave to amend, although this Court could have immediately summarily dismissed the petition without leave to amend, and admonished petitioner that failure to timely file the Second Amended Petition within thirty days could result in dismissal of the action. Although more than thirty days have passed, petitioner has not filed a Second Amended Petition.

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States Courts provides that "[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge shall make an order for its summary dismissal. . . ." 28 foll. U.S.C. § 2254, Rule 4. Since the First Amended Petition is defective on its face, and is vague, it should now be summarily dismissed without prejudice.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judgment shall be entered SUMMARILY DISMISSING without prejudice the First Amended Petition for writ of habeas corpus.

S. James Otero United States District Judge

ROSALYN M. CHAPMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20090116

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



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.