McKinney v. Hedepeth

Filing 10

ORDER Re: 9 Amended Petition filed by Alonzo McKinney. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 7/22/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/22/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

San Francisco Division

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11
ALONZO McKINNEY,

13
14
15

Petitioner,
v.

ORDER
[Re: ECF No. 9]

HEDGPETH, Warden,

16
17

No. C 14-864 LB

Respondent.
_____________________________________/

18
Alonzo McKinney filed this pro se action for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
19
apparently to challenge a conviction from Monterey County Superior Court. The court reviewed the
20
petition, determined that it did not state a claim upon which habeas relief could be granted, and
21
dismissed it with leave to file an amended petition no later than May 2, 2014. See ECF No. 6. The
22
court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim and entered judgment on May 20, 2014 because
23
Mr. McKinney did not file an amended petition.
24
On June 9, 2014, five weeks after the deadline to file an amended petition, Mr. McKinney filed
25
an amended petition without offering any explanation as to why it was so late. In addition to being
26
quite tardy, the amended petition fails to cure the deficiencies identified in the order of dismissal
27
with leave to amend. Like the original petition, the amended petition fails to adequately describe the
28
claims for relief and fails to adequately describe the facts supporting each claim. The allegations of
C 14-864 LB
ORDER

1

the amended petition may be directed at disciplinary proceedings rather than the conviction, but the

2

court cannot even be certain of that because the claims and facts are not adequately described. The

3

post-judgment amended petition is dismissed because it is untimely and fails to cure the deficiencies

4

in the original petition. There is no need to vacate the order of dismissal or judgment because the

5

amended petition will not be permitted. Finally, as the court stated in the order of dismissal, the

6

dismissal of this action is without prejudice to Mr. McKinney filing a new action for writ of habeas

7

corpus if he ever is able to state his legal claims and describe the facts in support of those claims.

8

Mr. McKinney should not file any more documents in this closed action.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 22, 2014
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

C 14-864 LB
ORDER

2