UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 10, 2010
JAMES CONRIQUEZ, JR., PETITIONER,
DERRAL G. ADAMS, WARDEN, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER REQUIRING PETITIONER TO SUBMIT WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS A SIGNED DECLARATION CONCERNING THE FIRST AMENDED PETITION
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge to conduct all further proceedings in the case, including the entry of final judgment, by manifesting their consent in writings signed by the parties or their representatives and filed by Petitioner on August 24, 2009, and on behalf of Respondent on August 18, 2009.
Petitioner filed the first amended petition (FAP) for writ of habeas corpus on April 19, 2010. A review of the FAP shows that Petitioner did not sign the first amended petition.
Local Rule 131 requires a document submitted to the Court for filing to include an original signature. In addition, Rule 2 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (Habeas Rules) requires a petition for writ of habeas corpus to "be signed under penalty of perjury by the petitioner."
Petitioner was previously directed to file a verification to the first amended petition; although Petitioner filed a status report, he did not file a verification.
In light of the difficulty in having Petitioner submit a new habeas corpus petition, Petitioner is ORDERED to submit a document stating that he submitted the first amended petition to the Court and verifying its contents to be true under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States. Petitioner must sign the document under penalty of perjury; the document should contain an original signature. Petitioner is GRANTED thirty (30) from the date of service of this order to comply with the Court's directive.
Petitioner is forewarned that failure to comply with a Court order will result in dismissal of the petition pursuant to Local Rule 110.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.