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)

Download PDF
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. ยง 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

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?