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.

Norris v. Brown

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


September 10, 2010

ALVIN ROCKNEY NORRIS, PETITIONER,
v.
JERRY BROWN, RESPONDENT.

ORDER

This habeas action was transferred to this court from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington because it appeared to that court that petitioner was challenging a conviction and sentence imposed by the Shasta County Superior Court, a court located within the Eastern District of California. On August 23, 2010, petitioner filed two pages of the form petition for a writ of habeas corpus. (Doc. No. 9 - "Amended Petition.") Therein, petitioner indicates that the date of the his challenged conviction was March of 2010 and that he has filed a "petition" with the "highest state court having jurisdiction[.]" (Am. Petition, ¶ 11(c), at 2.) However, petitioner has not described the claims that were raised in his state habeas petition and he has not submitted the pages of the form habeas petition that require him to describe the grounds for relief he is seeking to present in his federal habeas petition. Therefore, the court will dismiss petitioner's amended petition and grant him leave to file a second amended petition, using the form petition provided by the court. Petitioner is directed to complete each page of the form petition if he wishes to proceed with this action.

Petitioner is also cautioned that the exhaustion of state court remedies is a prerequisite to the granting of a petition for writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion requirement by fairly presenting to the highest state court all federal claims before presenting them to the federal court. See Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995) (per curiam); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971); Crotts v. Smith, 73 F.3d 861, 865 (9th Cir. 1996); Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 1986).

Finally, because petitioner's previous applications to proceed in forma pauperis were incomplete. petitioner will be required to file a new application to proceed in forma pauperis, including the certificate by the authorized officer at Atascadero State Hospital.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner shall submit, within thirty days from the date of this order, an application requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis;

2. Within thirty days from the date of this order, petitioner shall file a second amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus that complies with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; the second amended petition must bear the docket number assigned this case and must be labeled "Second Amended Petition;" petitioner must use the form petition provided by the court; petitioner must answer each question in the form petition;

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to provide petitioner with the court's form petition for a writ of habeas corpus by a state prisoner and the application for requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis; and

4. Petitioner's failure to comply with this order will result in the dismissal of this action.

20100910

© 1992-2010 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.