Jim Katasse v. Warden Michael F Martel

Filing 4

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY PETITION SHOULD NOT BE CONSOLIDATED by Magistrate Judge Kenly Kiya Kato. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 12/15/2014. (dts)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JIM KATASSE,

12
13
14
15
16
17

Petitioner,
vs.
WARDEN MICHAEL F.
MARTEL,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 14-08937-AB (KK)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO
WHY PETITION SHOULD NOT BE
CONSOLIDATED

On November 20, 2014 petitioner Jim Katasse (“Petitioner”) purported to

18 file a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (“Petition”)
19 herein, utilizing the approved Central District of California form for such petitions.
20 ECF Docket (“Dkt.”) No. 1. Petitioner challenges his 2012 probation revocation
21 proceedings in connection with his underlying robbery conviction sustained in Los
22 Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. SA063728. Id. Petitioner presents a
23 single ground for relief, namely, that he was denied due process in connection with
24 his probation revocation hearing Id. at 5.
25
While Petitioner claims not to have previously filed any habeas petitions in
26 federal court with respect to this judgment of conviction, he, in fact, has a pending
27 case, Katasse v. Acting Warden Neil McDowell, CV 14-06717-AB (KK). In that
28 petition which was filed on September 30, 2014, Petitioner challenges the same
1

1 2012 probation revocation proceedings in connection with his underlying robbery
2 conviction sustained in Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. SA063728.
3 In the previous petition, Petitioner presents three grounds for relief: (1) “not given
4 discovery”; (2) “no speedy trial”; and “was never given written notice of claimed
5 violation or disclosure of evidence against me.” Katasse v. Acting Warden Neil
6 McDowell, CV 14-06717-AB (KK), Dkt. 3 at 5-6.
7

Because Petitioner is challenging the same probation revocation hearing, the

8 Court finds consolidation of the actions to be appropriate. Thus, Petitioner is
9 directed to file a response to this Order no later than December 15, 2014.
10 Petitioner shall state whether he consents to the consolidation of his two petitions.
11 If Petitioner so consents, the low-number case which was filed first, Case Number
12 CV 14-06717-AB (KK), shall be the operative case and the Court shall provide
13 Petitioner additional time in which to file an amended petition incorporating all
14 grounds he intends to raise.
15
16 DATED: November 21, 2014
17
18
19

HON. KENLY KIYA KATO
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2