Starr v. State of California et al

Filing 8

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 4/24/12 ORDERING that petitioners application to proceed in forma pauperis 7 , is GRANTED. Petitioners petition for writ of habeas corpus 1 , is dismissed. Petitioner is granted 30 days from th e date of this order to file an amended petition containing only the claims challenging his Sacramento County conviction; failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Petitioners motion for trial 6 , is DENIED. (Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

ROBIN GILLEN STARR,
Petitioner,

11
12
13
14

No. 2:12-cv-0083 KJN P

vs.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
Respondents.

ORDER
/

15
16

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, has filed a petition for a

17

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with an application to proceed in

18

forma pauperis.

19

Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable

20

to afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be

21

granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

22

In his petition, petitioner appears to challenge separate convictions in Yolo

23

County and Sacramento County. A petitioner seeking relief from judgments of more than one

24

state court must file a separate petition covering the judgment or judgments of each court. Rule

25

2(e), Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Therefore, petitioner may not challenge both

26

his Yolo County and Sacramento County convictions in this action.
1

Court records indicate that petitioner filed another habeas corpus petition in

1
2

this court, also assigned to the undersigned. See Starr v. State of California, Case No. 2:12-cv-

3

0083 KJN P. In that case, petitioner also challenged both his Yolo County and Sacramento

4

County convictions. The undersigned dismissed the petition with leave to file an amended

5

petition containing petitioner’s challenge only to his Yolo County conviction; petitioner was

6

informed that he could pursue his challenge to his Sacramento County conviction in the instant

7

case. (Id., Dkt. No. 6.) Although petitioner apparently refused service of the court’s order in

8

Case No. 2:12-cv- 0083 KJN P (id., April 10, 2012 docket entry), the undersigned will retain this

9

distinction in petitioner’s two pending cases.
Therefore, petitioner may proceed, in the instant action, only with his claims

10
11

challenging his Sacramento County conviction.
One additional matter must be addressed. Petitioner has filed a motion to obtain

12
13

an order of this court directing the Sacramento County Sheriff “to pick up the plaintiff(s) (sic) for

14

a fair trial . . .” (Dkt. No. 6.) There is no basis or authority for such motion, which will therefore

15

be denied. If petitioner prevails in this court in a challenge to his Sacramento County conviction,

16

then the court will address at that time the appropriateness of a new trial.

17

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

18

1. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 7), is granted.

19

2. Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. No. 1), is dismissed.

20

petitioner is granted thirty days from the date of this order to file an amended petition containing

21

only the claims challenging his Sacramento County conviction; failure to comply with this order

22

will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.
3. Petitioner’s motion for trial (Dkt. No. 6), is denied.

23
24

DATED: April 24, 2012
____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26

star0083.lta

2