IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 6, 2009
LORENZO ARTEAGA, PETITIONER,
PETE WILSON, ET AL., RESPONDENT.
Petitioner, currently confined at Atascadero State Hospital, is proceeding pro se with this habeas corpus action. By order filed February 28, 2008, the court advised petitioner that to commence an action he was required to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in conformance with Rule 3 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The court informed petitioner that all petitions for writ of habeas corpus must be filed on the proper form, which was provided by the court.
In response to the court's order, petitioner has filed two one-page documents that the court simply cannot decipher. The first document is styled "three judge court requested" and appears to relate to a civil rights case. The second document is styled "Petition for Reconsideration" in which petitioner appears to summarily conclude that he is entitled to immediate release. Petitioner has also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, together with a series of documents that appear wholly unrelated to this case.
Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable to afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
However, in order to proceed with this action, petitioner must file a petition for writ of habeas corpus as required by Rule 3 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. As the court previously advised petitioner, the court requires all petitions for writ of habeas corpus be filed on the proper form. Moreover, the court may limit its review of the petition for relief to the information on the form only and need not consider any memoranda or attachments to the petition. See Rule 2(c), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. Petitioner will be provided a final opportunity to file a proper petition for writ of habeas corpus. However, petitioner's request for a three-judge panel and petition for reconsideration will be denied as indecipherable.
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner's March 31, 2008 application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 8) is granted;
2. Petitioner is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a petition that complies with the requirements of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the petition must bear the docket number assigned this case; any petition must be filed on the form employed by this court and must state all claims and prayers for relief on the form. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation for dismissal of this action;
3. Petitioner's February 29, 2008 request for a three-judge panel (Doc. No. 6) and April 3, 2008 petition for reconsideration (Doc. No. 9) are denied as indecipherable; and
4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send petitioner the court's form for filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.