Williams v. On Habeas Corpus

Filing 37

ORDER denying 31 Motion to Stay, 35 Motion for release from judgment and 36 Motion for Extension of time signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 9/17/13. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANTONIO R. WILLIAMS,

12

Petitioner,

13
14
15

No. 2:12-cv-1588 LKK CKD P

v.

ORDER

WARDEN, CALIFORNIA STATE
PRISON, LOS ANGELES COUNTY,
Respondent.

16

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an application

17
18

for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent’s motion to dismiss the

19

petition for untimeliness has been briefed and is pending. Petitioner recently filed three motions:

20

a motion to stay this action to exhaust unexhausted claims (ECF No. 31), a motion “seeking relief

21

from judgment of conviction” (ECF No. 35), and a motion for extension of time to obtain

22

transcripts from a preliminary hearing (ECF No. 36). As explained below, all of the motions are

23

frivolous and will be denied.
Petitioner’s previous motion to stay this action pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269

24
25

(2005), was denied, as petitioner failed to show good cause for not exhausting certain claims or

26

that such claims were potentially meritorious. (ECF No. 21.) Nothing in petitioner’s most recent

27

motion to stay compels a different conclusion; indeed, petitioner does not even address the Rhines

28

factors.
1

Petitioner’s motion challenging his conviction is inapposite, as that is the subject of the

1
2

petition in this action.

3

Finally, petitioner seeks an extension of time to obtain court transcripts. This is

4

unnecessary. If and when respondent files an answer to the petition, it “shall be accompanied by

5

all transcripts and other documents relevant to the issues presented in the petition.” ECF No. 24

6

at 2.

7

Petitioner’s filing of frivolous motions is a burden on this court and impedes the proper

8

prosecution of this action. Thus petitioner’s future filings shall therefore be limited as set forth

9

below.

10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

11

1. Plaintiff’s motion to stay (ECF No. 31) is denied;

12

2. Plaintiff’s motion for release from judgment of conviction (ECF No. 35) is denied;

13

3. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to obtain transcripts (ECF No. 36) is denied;

14

4. Petitioner may only file the following documents:

15

a. One opposition to any motion filed by respondent (and clearly titled as such);

16

b. Only one motion pending at any time. Petitioner is limited to one memorandum

17

of points and authorities in support of the motion and one reply to any opposition;

18

c. One set of objections to any future findings and recommendations;

19

d. One reply to any future answer filed by respondent.

20

Failure to comply with this order shall result in improperly filed documents being

21

stricken from the record.

22

Dated: September 17, 2013

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27

2 / will1588.limit

28
2