(HC) Thompson v. Spearman
Filing
7
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 9/10/2020 ORDERING Clerk to file 1 Petition in this action in the case named Thompson v. Spearman, No.2:19-cv-2328 KJM DB and label the petition filed in Thompson v. Spearman, No. 2:19-cv-2328 KJM DB "Petitioners First Amended Petition" on that case's docket. (Henshaw, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
KANE MICHAEL THOMPSON,
12
Petitioner,
13
14
No. 2:20-cv-0726 KJM DB P
v.
ORDER
M.E. SPEARMAN,
15
Defendant.
16
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
17
18
and has requested authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. This
19
proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
For the reasons stated below, the court shall direct the Clerk of Court to file the original
20
21
petition filed this matter, herein referred to as “Thompson II,” as petitioner’s first amended
22
petition (“FAP”) in his earlier-filed action, Thompson v. Spearman, No. 2:19-cv-2328 KJM DB P
23
(“Thompson I”). Thereafter, under separate orders in the two respective actions, the court shall:
24
(1) vacate the pending findings and recommendations to dismiss in the Thompson I matter; (2)
25
recommend that the Thompson II matter be dismissed as duplicative, and (3) address the
26
deficiencies in the Thompson I FAP.
27
////
28
////
1
I.
2
RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On April 13, 2020, in the instant action, the court directed petitioner either to file an
3
application to proceed in forma pauperis or to pay the appropriate filing fee. (See Thompson II,
4
ECF No. 3). Petitioner was given thirty days within which to do so.
5
Thereafter, on May 7, 2020, petitioner filed a letter with the court indicating his intent to
6
file an in forma pauperis application with the court. (Thompson II, ECF No. 4). In it, petitioner
7
also stated that he was having difficulty getting the form completed due to the COVID-19
8
pandemic. (See id.). Petitioner did not, however, provide the court with a date certain by which
9
he believed he would be able to file the application. (See id.). Ultimately, an in forma pauperis
10
application was never filed by petitioner.
11
On August 24, 2020, the court issued an order recommending that this action be
12
dismissed. (Thompson II, ECF No. 5). Petitioner has filed objections to the court’s order.
13
(Thompson II, ECF No. 6). In the filing, petitioner references extension of time and in forma
14
pauperis-related court orders he has received which have confused him. (See id.). He also asserts
15
that he timely filed an in forma pauperis application and that he has also filed an amended
16
petition. (See id.). Nevertheless, he asks the court to send him another application, and he asks
17
for a thirty-day extension of time to file it. (See id.).
18
II.
19
DISCUSSION
Based upon petitioner’s representations to the court, it has conducted a search of its
20
database of matters. In so doing, it has determined that petitioner has two actions in this court
21
that are currently open. (See Thompson I, ECF No. 1; see also Thompson II, ECF No. 1). The
22
first-filed action – Thompson I – was opened with this court on November 18, 2019, and the
23
instant action – Thompson II – was opened on April 8, 2020. It appears that the cases have
24
become conflated, in part, because petitioner failed to put case numbers on some of the
25
////
26
////
27
28
2
1
documents he filed with the court.1 (See, e.g., Thompson I, ECF Nos. 13, 14; see also Thompson
2
II, ECF No. 1).
3
In the earlier-filed Thompson I, on March 3, 2020, petitioner was ordered to file an
4
amended petition and to do so within thirty days. (Thompson I, ECF No. 12). Thereafter, on
5
April 8, 2020, petitioner filed a petition with the court. (See Thompson II, ECF No. 1).
6
However, it appears that because petitioner neither wrote the case number of Thompson I on the
7
April 2020 pleading, nor identified it as an amended petition, the matter was filed in this court as
8
a new action. That action is the instant Thompson II. (See Thompson II, ECF No. 1 at 1). The
9
fact that Thompson I and Thompson II ultimately raise the same claims which arise from the
10
same conviction and sentence supports these findings. (Compare Thompson I, ECF No. 1, with
11
Thompson II, ECF No. 1).
12
In light of the above, the petition filed in the instant action on April 8, 2020, is effectively
13
what the court shall now construe as the FAP that petitioner should have filed in Thompson I.
14
Consequently, the Clerk of Court shall be directed to file it in Thompson I and identify it on that
15
docket as petitioner’s FAP.
16
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall:
17
1. File the original petition in this action in the case named Thompson v. Spearman, No.
18
2:19-cv-2328 KJM DB, and
19
2. Label the petition filed in Thompson v. Spearman, No. 2:19-cv-2328 KJM DB
20
“Petitioner’s First Amended Petition” on that case’s docket.
21
Dated: September 10, 2020
22
23
24
DLB:13
DB/ORDERS/ORDERS.PRISONER.HABEAS/thom0726.fap2328
25
26
27
28
Petitioner is reminded that it is his responsibility, not the court’s, both to keep track of the cases
he has filed with the court and to make certain that he puts case numbers on the documents he
submits to it. Doing so not only enables petitioner to avoid the confusion and time lost he has
experienced to date; it also preserves this court’s extremely finite resources.
3
1
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?