Dupree v. Laver

Filing 5

ORDER AND ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 12/9/2010 ORDERING that ptnr's 1 application for writ of hc is DISMISSED; the clerk to send a copy of ptnr's application w/ a copy of this order to Rosen, Bien and Galvan; and w/in 30 days, ptnr to SHOW CAUSE in writing why this action should not be dismissed w/out prejudice. (Yin, K)

(HC) Dupree v. Laver

Doc. 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Court records reflect that petitioner has recently filed several other actions containing similar allegations. 1
Dockets.Justia.com
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RICHARD JOSE DUPREE, Petitioner, vs. ANGELICA LAUER, Respondent. / Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil action on the form for filing a petition writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has neither paid a filing fee for this action nor filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis. Petitioner has failed to specify any grounds for relief in his petition. See Rule 2(c), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. The petition is comprised of allegations against network television anchor Matt Lauer and a woman identified as Angelica Lauer, alleged to be Matt Lauer's wife, allegations which appear to be delusional.1 Good cause appearing, the Clerk of the Court will be directed to send a copy of the petition and a copy of this order to counsel for the plaintiff class in Coleman v. Schwarzenegger, No. 2:90-cv-0520 LKK JFM. ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE No. 2:10-cv-3114 WBS JFM (HC)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
1 2 ;d u p r 3 1 1 4 . o sc

Because petitioner has failed to specify any cognizable ground for habeas corpus relief in the petition, the petition will be dismissed. If, as petitioner alleges, an appeal from his sentence or his conviction is presently pending, amendment may be futile at this time; petitioner may not seek federal habeas corpus relief until he has exhaust state court remedies with respect to any federal claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion requirement by providing the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider all claims before presenting them to the federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971); Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986).2 Accordingly, petitioner will be ordered to show cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice. In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed; 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send a copy of petitioner's application together with a copy of this order to Rosen, Bien and Galvan, 315 Montgomery Street, Tenth Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104; and 3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, petitioner shall show cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice. DATED: December 9, 2010.

Any challenge to petitioner's conviction should be filed in the Fresno Division of this Court, as petitioner alleges that he was convicted in the Fresno County Superior Court. 2

2