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