Williams v. Filson

Filing 25

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 8/5/2019 DENYING petitioner's 19 motion and GRANTING petitioner 60 days to file a reply/traverse to respondent's answer. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARCELL WILLIAMS,

12

No. 2:18-cv-1305 KJM KJN P

Petitioner,

13

v.

14

ORDER

TIMOTHY FILSON,

15

Respondent.

16
17

Petitioner is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. This case was

18

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local

19

General Order No. 262. On May 28, 2019, petitioner filed a document styled, “Motion to Clarify

20

Record.” (ECF No. 19.) Petitioner’s motion is not clear, but it appears that petitioner wishes to

21

add in claims that were previously dismissed as unexhausted.1 However, petitioner has not

22

demonstrated that he has exhausted such claims.2

23

1

24
25

Earlier in this case, petitioner filed a motion for stay. On September 17, 2018, the undersigned
recommended that petitioner’s motion for stay be denied, and petitioner be ordered to file an
amended petition raising only his exhausted claims (1) and (5). Petitioner did not file objections
to the findings and recommendations. On March 9, 2019, the district court adopted the findings
and recommendations in full. This action now proceeds on petitioner’s amended petition.

26
2

27
28

Indeed, the only filing in the California Supreme Court was the petition for review filed in Case
No. S143801 on May 30, 2006, and denied on July 12, 2006. People v. Williams, S143801 (Cal.)
The court may take judicial notice of facts that are “not subject to reasonable dispute because it . .
. can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be
1

1

Moreover, to the extent petitioner seeks leave to amend his petition again, his filing is not

2

in the proper form. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. If petitioner seeks leave to amend his pleading, he must

3

file a motion to amend, accompanied by a proposed second amended petition.

4
5

Since the filing of petitioner’s motion, respondent filed an answer. Therefore, petitioner is
granted an extension of time in which to file a reply to the answer.

6

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

7

1. Petitioner’s May 28, 2019 motion (ECF No. 19) is denied; and

8

2. Petitioner is granted sixty days in which to file a reply to respondent’s answer.

9

Dated: August 5, 2019

10
11
12
/cw/will1305.den

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

questioned,” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b), including undisputed information posted on official websites.
Daniels-Hall v. National Education Association, 629 F.3d 992, 999 (9th Cir. 2010). It is
appropriate to take judicial notice of the docket sheet of a California court. White v. Martel, 601
F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir. 2010). The address of the official website of the California state courts is
www.courts.ca.gov.
2