Brown v. Lewis et al

Filing 11

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton denying 10 Motion to Amend/Correct (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (nahS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/20/2014)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

OAKLAND DIVISION

6
7

MICHAEL IZELL BROWN SEALS,
Petitioner,

8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C 13-3975 PJH (PR)

vs.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
AMEND

GREG D. LEWIS,
Respondent.
/

12
13

Petitioner, a former California prisoner had filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas

14

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The case was dismissed without prejudice when

15

mail sent to petitioner was returned as undeliverable. Petitioner has provided an updated

16

address and has filed a motion to amend.

17

Petitioner was sentenced on September 24, 2001. The court originally ordered

18

petitioner to show cause why this case should not be dismissed as untimely. Petitioner has

19

still not replied to the court’s order. Petitions filed by prisoners challenging non-capital state

20

convictions or sentences must be filed within one year of the latest of the dates on which:

21

(1) the judgment became final after the conclusion of direct review or the time passed for

22

seeking direct review; (2) an impediment to filing an application created by unconstitutional

23

state action was removed, if such action prevented petitioner from filing; (3) the

24

constitutional right asserted was recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right was newly

25

recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactive to cases on collateral review; or (4)

26

the factual predicate of the claim could have been discovered through the exercise of due

27

diligence. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).

28

Petitioner argued that prior bad acts were improperly admitted in his 2001 trial. To

1

proceed with this case petitioner must respond to the court’s order to show cause and file a

2

brief motion seeking to reopen the case

3

CONCLUSION

4

1. The motion to amend (Docket No. 10) is DENIED and petitioner shall show cause

5

by April 21, 2014, why this petition should not be dismissed as untimely and he shall file a

6

motion to reopen the case.

7
8
9

“S” Street, Apt. B, Eureka, CA 95501
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 20, 2014.
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

2. The Clerk shall change the address on the docket and serve petitioner at 1215

12
G:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.13\Brown-Seals3975.ord.wpd

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2