LaFlamme v. Blanchard

Filing 12

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 3/21/14. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/21/2014)

1

*E-Filed 3/21/14*
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
6
7
8

DONALD R. LAFLAMME,
Petitioner,

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

v.

10
11

No. C 13-2934 RS (PR)

BLANCHARD, Warden,
Respondents.

12

/

13
14

The original petition was dismissed with leave to amend because it was prolix and

15

incomprehensible. The amended petition also contains incomprehensible claims, and

16

therefore fails to correct the serious deficiencies of the first. Because the claims are

17

incomprehensible, the petition fails to meet the specificity and clarity requirements of Mayle

18

v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 655 (2005). Accordingly, this habeas action is DISMISSED without

19

prejudice. Because this dismissal is without prejudice, petitioner may file a motion to reopen

20

the action, but any such motion must contain a petition putting forth comprehensible claims.

21

Petitioner’s motion to consolidate his actions (Docket No. 11) is DENIED as moot. The

22

Clerk shall terminate Docket No. 11, enter judgment in favor of respondents, and close the

23

file.

24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 21, 2014
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge

27
28
No. C 13-2934 RS (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL