(HC) Williams v. Jones
Filing
30
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 3/7/2025 DISMISSING 26 Second Amended Petition with leave to amend. Within 30 days from service of this order, petitioner shall file either an amended petition or a notice of voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice. 28 Motion for Evidentiary Hearing and Appointment of Counsel is DENIED. (Deputy Clerk HAH)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
KIRK DOUGLAS WILLIAMS,
12
Petitioner,
13
v.
14
GENA JONES,
15
Case No. 2:23-cv-1862-DC-JDP (P)
ORDER
Respondent.
16
17
18
Petitioner, a former state prisoner, brings this action under section 2254 and alleges that
19
he is actually innocent of the state criminal conviction that has resulted in his placement in
20
custody. In my last screening order, I found that the petition was deficient because it did not use
21
the standard habeas form offered by this district, and because the lengthy petition was difficult to
22
understand. ECF No. 18 at 1-2. I also informed petitioner that his petition failed to indicate
23
which, if any, of his claims had been exhausted in state court. Id. I gave petitioner leave to
24
amend, and he has done so, ECF No. 26. The amended petition is, however, deficient for the
25
same reasons as its predecessor. I will give petitioner one final opportunity to amend. If the next
26
amended petition is similarly flawed, I will recommend that this action be dismissed. I will also
27
deny petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel and for an evidentiary hearing. ECF No. 28.
28
1
1
The petition is before me for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing
2
Section 2254 Cases. Under Rule 4, the judge assigned to the habeas proceeding must examine
3
the habeas petition and order a response to the petition unless it “plainly appears” that the
4
petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019);
5
Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998).
6
As before, petitioner has filed an extremely lengthy petition (nearly one thousand pages)
7
comprised entirely of uncontextualized exhibits. ECF No. 26. And, as before, the exact number
8
of claims at issue and their exhaustion status is impossible to determine. No respondent could
9
reasonably be expected to digest a petition of this length and to understand the nature of
10
petitioner’s claims. I will dismiss the operative petition and give petitioner a final opportunity to
11
amend.
I will also deny petitioner’s motion for an evidentiary hearing and appointment of counsel.
12
13
ECF No. 28. Therein, he alleges that an unnamed member of this district’s clerk’s office caused
14
his most recent petition to be “improperly numerically filed.” Id. at 2. I do not understand this
15
allegation and, in any event, plaintiff’s most recent petition has been filed and considered. There
16
is no need for an evidentiary hearing on this issue and, as such, no need for counsel to represent
17
him at such a hearing. The motion is denied.
18
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
19
1. Petitioner’s second amended petition, ECF No. 26, is DISMISSED with leave to
20
21
22
amend.
2. Within thirty days from service of this order, petitioner shall file either (1) an amended
petition or (2) notice of voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice.
23
3. Failure to timely file either an amended petition or notice of voluntary dismissal may
24
result in the imposition of sanctions, including a recommendation that this action be dismissed
25
with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
26
4. The Clerk of Court shall send petitioner a habeas form with this order.
27
5. Petitioner’s motion for evidentiary hearing and appointment of counsel, ECF No. 28, is
28
DENIED.
2
1
2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
3
Dated:
March 7, 2025
4
JEREMY D. PETERSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?