(HC) Franks v. Superior Court of Stanislaus County

Filing 11

ORDER DENYING 10 Motion to Reopen Case signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/8/2020. (Lundstrom, T)

Case 1:20-cv-00136-DAD-EPG Document 11 Filed 09/08/20 Page 1 of 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TOM M. FRANKS,

12
13

Petitioner,

No. 1:20-cv-00136-DAD-EPG (HC)
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION
TO REOPEN CASE

v.
(Doc. No. 10)

14

SUPERIOR COURT OF STANISLAUS
COUNTY,

15
Respondent.
16
17
18

On January 27, 2020, petitioner Tom M. Franks filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. §

19

2254, challenging the state court’s denial of his motion for DNA testing. (Doc. No. 1.) On

20

February 11, 2020, after a preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254,

21

the assigned magistrate judge recommended that petitioner’s pending federal habeas petition be

22

dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim for habeas relief and that petitioner be granted

23

leave to file a civil rights complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 6.) On

24

April 2, 2020, after no objections were filed by petitioner, the court adopted the findings and

25

recommendations and granted petitioner sixty days to file his civil rights complaint. (Doc. No. 7.)

26

When no civil rights complaint was filed by petitioner in this case within the time provided, on

27

July 16, 2020, the court dismissed this action without prejudice to petitioner refiling his claims in

28

a new civil action brought pursuant to § 1983 and closed this case. (Doc. No. 8.)
1

Case 1:20-cv-00136-DAD-EPG Document 11 Filed 09/08/20 Page 2 of 2
1

On July 31, 2020, petitioner filed the instant motion to reopen this case. (Doc. No. 10.)

2

Therein, petitioner finally informs the court that on March 6, 2020, he filed a § 1983 complaint as

3

a new case, No. 1:20-cv-003670 AWI-SAB, without informing the court of the new proceeding.

4

(Id.)

5

Despite this confusion, the court finds that there is no good reason to reopen this habeas

6

action. Given the court’s adoption of the February 11, 2020 findings and recommendation, there

7

is no need to reopen this case to continue litigating any claim for federal habeas relief. Moreover,

8

because petitioner has brought his § 1983 civil rights claims in a newly filed case, there is no need

9

to reopen this case for petitioner to file duplicative § 1983 claims here. Accordingly, petitioner’s

10

motion to reopen case (Doc. No. 10) is denied. Of course, he may continue to pursue his claims

11

in Case No. 1:20-cv-003670 AWI-SAB.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

Dated:

September 8, 2020
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2