Sandoval v. Unknown

Filing 14

ORDER DISMISSING CASE Without Prejudice and Without Further Leave to Amend. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 11/7/2017.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(mpl)(jrd)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LUIS SANDOVAL,

Case No.: 17cv1275-GPC (BGS)
Petitioner,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER DISMISSING CASE
WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND
WITHOUT FURTHER LEAVE
TO AMEND

UNKNOWN,

15

Respondent.

16
17

On June 16, 2017, Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a document with this Court

18

entitled “In Pro Per Writ of Habeas Corpus.” (ECF No. 1.) The Court dismissed the action

19

without prejudice and with leave to amend on June 27, 2017, because Petitioner had failed

20

to satisfy the filing fee requirement, failed to allege he was in custody, failed to state a

21

cognizable federal habeas claim, failed to allege exhaustion of state court remedies, and

22

failed to name a respondent. (ECF No. 2.) Petitioner was given until August 29, 2017, to

23

either pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit adequate proof of his inability to pay the fee, and

24

to submit a First Amended Petition that cured the pleading deficiencies outlined in the

25

Court’s June 27, 2017 Order. (Id.) He was provided with blank Southern District of

26

California in forma pauperis and amended petition forms. (Id.)

27

On July 3, 2017, Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of

28

Appeals challenging the dismissal. (ECF No. 3.) On July 13, 2017, he filed a First
1
17cv1275-GPC (BGS)

1

Amended Petition in this Court but failed to utilize the forms which had been provided to

2

him. (ECF No. 7.) On July 17, 2017, the Court dismissed the First Amended Petition

3

because Petitioner had once again failed to either pay the filing fee or file an application to

4

proceed in forma pauperis, failed to allege he was in custody, failed to allege a claim

5

cognizable on federal habeas, failed to allege exhaustion of state court remedies, and failed

6

to name a respondent. (ECF No. 8.) Petitioner was instructed that in order to proceed with

7

this action he must, on or before September 12, 2017, satisfy the filing fee requirement and

8

file a Second Amended Petition which cures the deficiencies of pleading, and was once

9

again provided with the necessary forms. (Id.) On July 26, 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court

10

of Appeals dismissed Petitioner’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction because he was attempting

11

to appeal an order which is not final or appealable. (ECF No. 11.)

12

On November 1, 2017, after the deadline to do so had passed, Petitioner filed a

13

document which the Court has docketed as a Second Amended Petition. (ECF No. 13.)

14

Petitioner has once again made no effort whatsoever to cure the pleading deficiencies of

15

his previous pleadings or to use the forms provided to him, and has still not made any

16

attempt to satisfy the filing fee requirement.

17

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides for summary dismissal

18

of a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits

19

annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court . . .” Rule 4, 28

20

U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Here, it appears plain from the Second Amended Petition that

21

Petitioner is not presently entitled to federal habeas relief for the same reasons set forth in

22

this Court’s previous Orders of dismissal, as he has not satisfied the filing fee requirement,

23

has not alleged he is in custody, has failed to state a cognizable claim for relief, has not

24

alleged exhaustion of state court remedies, and has not named a respondent.

25

It is also clear that Petitioner has not, and continues to refuse to, comply with this

26

Court’s Orders to cure these pleading deficiencies, or use the proper forms. Accordingly,

27

the Court will not provide Petitioner with further leave to amend. If Petitioner wishes to

28

proceed, he must initiate a new action which will be given a new civil case number.
2
17cv1275-GPC (BGS)

1
2
3
4
5

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice and
without further leave to amend. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 7, 2017

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
17cv1275-GPC (BGS)