Amaya v. Frauenheim

Filing 3

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Nandor J. Vadas on 2/28/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(njvlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/28/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 EUREKA DIVISON 7 8 ALEXIS JOEL AMAYA, Case No. 17-cv-0108-NJV (PR) Petitioner, 9 v. ORDER DISMISSING CASE 10 11 SCOTT FRAUENHEIM, United States District Court Northern District of California Respondent. 12 13 Petitioner, a California prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant 14 to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has paid the filing fee. He notes that he has another petition pending in 15 this court challenging the same conviction. In Case No. 16-cv-5069 NJV, the petition was stayed 16 so petitioner could exhaust further claims. Exhaustion has not been completed. In this case, 17 petitioner states that he has new claims he seeks to add. All claims must be brought in the earlier 18 filed petition. Therefore, this case is dismissed. When petitioner exhausts all of his claims in the 19 earlier filed petition he may request to amend the petition and add these new claims and the court 20 will consider his arguments at that time. The new claims must also be exhausted. 21 This case is DISMISSED. The clerk shall close this file. Because reasonable jurists 22 would not find the result here debatable, a certificate of appealability (“COA”) is DENIED. See 23 Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000) (standard for COA). 24 25 26 27 28 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 28, 2017 ________________________ NANDOR J. VADAS United States Magistrate Judge

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?