Hill v. Cates

Filing 3

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION AS FILED IN ERROR; NO FILING FEE DUE; INSTRUCTIONS TO THE CLERK. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 11/15/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/16/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

No. C-11-4890 TEH (PR)

CHAZARUS HILL, SR.,

12

Petitioner,

13

v.

14

MATTHEW CATE, Secretary,

15

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION AS
FILED IN ERROR; NO FILING FEE
DUE; INSTRUCTIONS TO THE CLERK

Respondent.

16

/

17
18

The above-entitled action relates to an earlier action

19

filed by Petitioner, a pro se Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

20

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a judgment of conviction from

21

Alameda County Superior Court.

22

docketed as Hill v. State of California, No. 09-cv-03147-TEH (PR)

23

(N.D. Cal. filed July 10, 2009).

24

action and closed it administratively to allow Petitioner to exhaust

25

all of his claims in state court.

26

No. 09-cv-03147-TEH (PR) (N.D. Cal. filed July 10, 2009) (Doc. #13).

27

On September 22, 2011, the Court granted Petitioner’s request to

28

lift the stay and reopened the action.

The earlier-filed action was

The Court ultimately stayed that

See Hill v. State of California,

See Id., Doc. #21.

The

1

Court gave Petitioner until October 28, 2011 to file an amended

2

petition containing all exhausted claims he wished to challenge by

3

way of federal habeas proceedings.

4

Id.

Then, on October 3, 2011, Petitioner filed his amended

5

petition.

6

action entitled Hill v. Cates, No. 11-cv-04890-TEH (PR) (N.D. Cal.

7

filed October 3, 2011).

8

October 3, 2011 should have been filed as a court-ordered amended

9

petition under Hill v. State of California, No. 09-cv-03147-TEH (PR)

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Inadvertently, the amended petition was docketed as a new

But the document Petitioner filed on

(N.D. Cal. filed July 10, 2009).

11

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown:

12

1.

The action in Hill v. Cates, No. 11-cv-04890-TEH (PR)

13

(N.D. Cal. filed October 3, 2011) is DISMISSED.

14

due.

15

and close the file.

No filing fee is

The clerk is directed to terminate any pending motions as moot

16

2.

The Clerk is further directed to re-file the amended

17

petition containing all exhausted claims (i.e., Doc. No. 1 in Hill

18

v. Cates, No. 11-cv-04890-TEH (PR) (N.D. Cal. filed October 3, 2011)

19

in the earlier-filed action Petitioner filed in this Court, Hill v.

20

State of California, No. 09-cv-03147-TEH (PR) (N.D. Cal. filed July

21

10, 2009).

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24
25

DATED

11/15/2011
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge

26
27
28

G:\PRO-SE\TEH\HC.11\Hill-11-4890-dismiss-filed in error-see 09-3147.wpd

2