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)

Download PDF
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?