Oscar Gates v. Warden at San Quentin
Filing
6
ORDER DISMISSING CASE by Judge Manuel L. Real. Accordingly, it is ordered that petitioner's Motion for Corrections (docket no. 5) is GRANTED, this action is dismissed, and the declaration construed herein as a new habeas petition shall be filed in case numbers CV 94-2560 and CV 94-5484. It is so ordered. **See Order for details.**, Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (ch)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
WESTERN DIVISION
11
12
OSCAR GATES,
13
Petitioner,
14
15
v.
THE WARDEN AT SAN QUENTIN,
16
Respondent.
17
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CV 13-6995-R (PLA)
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION
18
Currently pending in the Central District of California is petitioner’s habeas action, CV 94-
19
2560-LGB (PLA) and CV 94-5484-LGB (PLA) (the “consolidated cases”), which has been stayed
20
pending resolution of further proceedings in petitioner’s federal capital habeas case in the District
21
Court for the Northern District of California.
22
consolidated cases. The parties have been filing periodic status reports updating the Court of
23
developments in the Northern District case. The most recent status report was filed on September
24
25, 2013.
Petitioner is represented by counsel in the
25
On September 20, 2013, petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed with this Court a 66-page
26
declaration that he concludes with a “Prayer for Relief” seeking the issuance of the writ of habeas
27
corpus “which he originally petitioned before this Court . . . in (1982) and subsequently in (1994)
28
after numerous delays and obsticles [sic]” (the “declaration”). The declaration was construed by
1
the clerk’s office as a new habeas petition and assigned Central District case number CV 13-6995-
2
R (PLA) (the “instant action.”). In a subsequent letter to the Court dated September 25, 2013,
3
entitled “Motion for Corrections,” petitioner explained that he intended to include docket numbers
4
CV 94-2560 and CV 94-5484 on his September 20, 2013, declaration (which he refers to in his
5
letter as a motion for summary judgment) and requests that docket number CV 13-6995 be
6
removed from the instant action, i.e., he intended to file the declaration in connection with the
7
consolidated action, and not as a new and separate proceeding.
8
The Magistrate Judge ordered that counsel for both petitioner and respondent in the
9
consolidated cases file their positions concerning the impact of petitioner’s declaration in the
10
instant action on the consolidated cases. They did so on October 9, 2013, and concur with
11
petitioner that the declaration was misfiled as a new habeas action, and was intended by petitioner
12
to be a summary judgment motion in the consolidated cases.
13
Accordingly, it is ordered that petitioner’s Motion for Corrections (docket no. 5) is granted,
14
this action is dismissed, and the declaration construed herein as a new habeas petition shall be
15
filed in case numbers CV 94-2560 and CV 94-5484.
16
It is so ordered.
17
18
19
DATED: October 15, 2013
HON. MANUEL REAL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?