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.

Norman v. Dovey

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


April 23, 2009

CHARLES GLENN NORMAN JR., PETITIONER,
v.
JOHN DOVEY, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

ORDER

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On March 11, 2009, the court issued findings and recommendations, recommending dismissal of this action because petitioner failed to file a third amended petition in accordance with the court's January 29, 2009 order.

Petitioner has since filed a request for a copy of his petition, explaining that he cannot file a third amended petition without a copy of his original petition. Petitioner claims that his original petition is the only document that contains all of his claims and prayers for relief. Petitioner is advised that the court does not typically provide parties with copies of court documents. However, good cause appearing, the court will provide petitioner with a copy of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this instance only. In addition, the court will vacate its findings and recommendations and grant petitioner thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a third amended petition.

As the court previously explained, petitioner must file his third amended petition on the proper form provided by the court. If petitioner requires additional space, he must continue responses as needed on pages that follow the same format as the form and are clearly linked to the form by page number or question number. Petitioner is advised that although he may submit a separate memorandum to support his petition for relief, the court's application form must contain all relevant claims and must provide the court with all necessary information.

In addition, petitioner must "name the state officer having custody of him or her as the respondent to the petition." Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254). The proper respondent in the usual habeas action is the warden of the institution where the petitioner is currently incarcerated.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The court's March 11, 2009 findings and recommendations are vacated;

2. Petitioner's March 12, 2009 request for a copy of his petition (Doc. No. 25) is granted;

3. Petitioner is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a third amended petition. Petitioner's third amended petition must be filed on the form employed by this court, must name the proper respondent, and must state all claims and prayers for relief on the form. It must bear the case number assigned to this action and must bear the title "Third Amended Petition"; and

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send petitioner the form for habeas corpus application, together with a copy of his original petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1).

20090423

© 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.