Levi Micah Barter v. Jerry Brown et al

Filing 6

MINUTES (In Chambers) by Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams. Petitioner shall also show cause, NO LATER THAN MAY 12, 2014, why the instant Petition should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust state judicial remedies. Filing by petitioner of an Amende d Petition -- on the Central District of California's form Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus -- clearly showing that petitioner has exhausted his state judicial remedies, shall be deemed compliance with this Order to Show Cause. Petitioner is a dvised that his failure to show in his Amended Petition that he has exhausted his state judicial remedies will result in the action being dismissed for lack of exhaustion. Petitioner is further advised that his failure to timely respond to this Order will result in the action being dismissed for failure to prosecute and follow Court orders. **See Order for details.** (Attachments: # 1 blank state habeas petition, # 2 petition) (ch)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES-GENERAL Case No. CV 14-3089-DMG (PLA) Date April 28, 2014 Title: Levi Micah Barter v. Jerry Brown, et al. G U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE PRESENT: THE HONORABLE PAUL L. ABRAMS Christianna Howard Deputy Clerk ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PETITIONER: NONE PROCEEDINGS: : MAGISTRATE JUDGE N/A Court Reporter / Recorder N/A Tape No. ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR RESPONDENT: NONE (IN CHAMBERS) As background, on March 31, 2014, petitioner filed a habeas petition in this Court in Case No. CV 14-2418DMG (PLA) (“March 31 Petition”). In the March 31 Petition, petitioner raised four grounds for relief, and indicated that he had not raised any of those grounds in the California Supreme Court. (See March 31 Petition at 6-9). On April 3, 2014, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause Re Lack of Exhaustion, as it appeared that petitioner had not exhausted his state judicial remedies in connection with the matter (“Order to Show Cause”). On April 1, 2014, this Court received a second Petition for Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody from petitioner, transferred from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California (“Eastern District Petition”). The document, labeled by petitioner as “Amended Motion for Reconsideration of Petition Under 28 [U.S.C.] § 2254 For Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody,” was construed by the transferring court as a Petition for Habeas Corpus. (See Case No. CV 14-2593-DMG (PLA), Docket No. 14). The Eastern District Petition raises the same four grounds for relief as petitioner’s March 31 Petition. (Eastern District Petition at 5-6). On April 11, 2014, for the same reasons as those set forth in the Court’s April 3, 2014, Order with regard to Petitioner’s March 31 Petition, the Court issued an Order requiring petitioner to show cause why his Eastern District Petition should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust state judicial remedies. On April 17, 2014, this Court received petitioner’s instant Petition for Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody, transferred from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. (See Case No. CV 14-3089-DMG (PLA), Docket No. 3). The instant Petition, petitioner’s third, raises essentially the same four grounds for relief as petitioner’s March 31 Petition and his Eastern District Petition. (Compare Petition at 6-9, with March 31 Petition at 6-9, Eastern District Petition at 5-6). The Court observes that, despite petitioner’s previous two habeas filings raising essentially the same four grounds as those raised in this Petition, petitioner erroneously indicates that the instant Petition is his “first federal petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging this conviction.” (Petition at 5). For the same reasons as those set forth in the Court’s Order to Show Cause, petitioner shall also show cause, no later than May 12, 2014, why the instant Petition should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust state judicial remedies. Filing by petitioner of an Amended Petition -- on the Central District of California’s form Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus -- clearly showing that petitioner has exhausted his state judicial remedies, shall be deemed compliance with this Order to Show Cause. Petitioner is advised that his failure to show in his Amended Petition that he has exhausted his state judicial remedies will result in the action being dismissed for lack of exhaustion. Petitioner is further advised that his failure to timely respond to this Order will result in the action being dismissed for failure to prosecute and follow Court orders. The Court Clerk is directed to send petitioner a copy of his current Petition, together with blank copies of the forms required when filing a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody. Any Amended Petition or other filing with the Court in this action shall use the case number assigned to this action. cc: Levi Micah Barter, Pro se Initials of Deputy Clerk CV-90 (10/98) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL ch

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?