ORDER CONFIRMING "DO NOT FILE" STATUS AND DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT HENCEFORTH TO RETURN TO PETITIONER ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR FILING IN THIS ACTION
MICHAEL M. ANELLO, District Judge.
On March 14, 2011, Petitioner Cornelius Anderson, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Doc. No. 1. Petitioner complained that his personal property had been confiscated in violation of his constitutional rights. The Court dismissed the petition without prejudice for failure to name a proper respondent and failure to state a cognizable federal habeas claim. See Doc. No. 8. The Court explained that Petitioner's claim might be brought more appropriately pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. The Court provided Petitioner with a blank Southern District of California amended petition form and a blank Southern District of California 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Complaint form, and instructed Petitioner to file an amended petition if he wished to pursue his habeas action. Id.
On April 20, 2011, Petitioner filed a document which the Court liberally construed as an amended petition. See Doc. No. 10. The Court dismissed the amended petition without prejudice for failure to name a proper respondent and failure to state a cognizable federal habeas claim. See Doc. No. 11. The Court advised Petitioner to consider raising his claims in the context of a civil rights action. Id. The Court granted Petitioner leave to file a second amended complaint on or before June 17, 2011. Id. Thereafter, Petitioner submitted a series of barely intelligible documents, which the Court rejected due to multiple filing discrepancies and returned to Petitioner with instructions to file a second amended complaint. See Doc. Nos. 12-14.
On May 18, 2011, Petitioner filed a document entitled "Affidavit" which was also largely incomprehensible. See Doc. No. 16. On June 22, 2011, Petitioner filed a document entitled "Response to Order Dismissing Case." See Doc. No. 18. Petitioner did not file a second amended petition.
On August 7, 2012, Petitioner submitted a document that referenced appointment of counsel, but was otherwise unintelligible. See Doc. No. 19. The Court rejected the document as discrepant on this basis and because the case had been dismissed and closed for more than a year. Id. In October 2012, Petitioner submitted a document that referenced a temporary restraining order; in December 2012, Petitioner submitted a document seeking a restraining order and referencing appointment of counsel; in January 2013, Petitioner submitted a document requesting appointment of counsel; in March 2013, Petitioner submitted a document with an illegible title; in April 2013, Petitioner submitted a document again seeking appointment of counsel. See Doc. Nos. 21-25. The Court rejected all of these documents based on multiple filing discrepancies and because the case was closed. Id.
On June 18, 2013, Petitioner submitted a document via U.S. Mail directly to the Chief Judge of the Southern District of California. Chief Judge Moskowitz issued an order acknowledging receipt of the document and advising Petitioner that the document was going to be referred to the undersigned. See Doc. No. 26. The Court rejected the document based on multiple filing discrepancies, advised Petitioner that no further filings in this case would be accepted, and instructed the Clerk of Court to flag the case with a "Do Not File" warning. See Doc. No. 27.
On August 6, 2013, Petitioner once again submitted a document via U.S. Mail directly to Chief Judge Moskowitz, who referred the document to the undersigned for consideration. See Doc. No. 28. The Court has reviewed Petitioner's submission. Petitioner complains that the undersigned has "racially profiled" him, committed "horrifying" violations of his rights, and "crucified" his petition. Petitioner again requests appointment of counsel. Although Petitioner's intent is unclear, if Petitioner is attempting to file a complaint of judicial misconduct against the undersigned, the Court advises Petitioner that such a complaint must be submitted directly to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, not the Chief Judge of this District. See 28 U.S.C. § 351 (complaints are to be filed with "the clerk of the court of appeals for the circuit. ") (emphasis added). Therefore, direct submission of these documents to Judge Moskowitz is wholly inappropriate.
Accordingly, the Court rejects the document for filing based on the standing order of this Court that no further filings in this action will be accepted. Sound public policy requires that, at some point, litigation must come to an end. See, e.g., Old Person v. Brown, 312 F.3d 1036, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002). In this case, the litigation ended more than two years ago when Petitioner failed to submit a petition containing a cognizable federal habeas claim.
The Clerk of Court is hereby directed henceforth to return to Petitioner any document(s) ...