Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00865/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00865-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

17cv865 JLS (PCL)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MIGUEL ANGEL TORRES,

Petitioner,

v.

RAYMOND MADDEN, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 17cv865 JLS (PCL)

ORDER (1) CONSTRUING MOTION 

AS ONE FOR EXTENSION OF 

TIME; (2) GRANTING MOTION; 

AND (3) RE-NOTIFYING 

PETITIONER OF FILING-FEE OR 

IFP REQUIREMENT

(ECF No. 5)

Presently before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion to Show Cause and Motion to 

Comply to Court Order (“Ext. Mot.”). (ECF No. 5) Read together, Petitioner (1) requests 

that the Court “[ex]cuse his lack of procedural facts[,]” and “submits [(2)] his $5.00 filing 

fee and [(3)] all the grounds submitted at the California Supreme Court for review and 

exhaustion.” (Ext. Mot. 1–2.) Given the foregoing, the Court construes Petitioner’s Motion 

as one for an extension of time by which to respond to the Court’s prior Order Dismissing 

Case Without Prejudice and Giving Notice of Options Due to Failure to Exhaust State 

Court Remedies (“Prior Dismissal Order”). (ECF No. 2.)

Previously, the Court dismissed without prejudice Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus due to (1) Petitioner’s failure to either pay the required $5.00 filing fee or

move for in forma pauperis status, (Prior Dismissal Order 1), and (2) Petitioner’s failure 

Case 3:17-cv-00865-JLS-RBM Document 6 Filed 07/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

17cv865 JLS (PCL)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

to indicate that two of his five claims had been exhausted in state Court, (id. at 2). The 

Court then “notifie[d] Petitioner of his options[,]” (id. at 2; see also id. at 3–5 (outlining in 

full Petitioner’s options)), and gave Petitioner until July 7, 2017, to correct the abovedescribed deficiencies, (id. at 6). On June 16, 2017, Petitioner attempted to comply, in part, 

with the Court’s Order by filing a non-compliant document stating that it was a scrivener’s 

error that “[P]etitioner did not mark on the respective space to state that he had already 

filed the claims four and five, as he did on claims one, two and three.” (ECF No. 3-1 

(noncompliant, Court-rejected document entitled “Motion in Support of Clerical Error”).) 

Petitioner did not mention the filing fee. (See id.)

Next, on July 14, 2017, Petitioner filed the instant Motion, (Ext. Mot. 1), attempting 

to detail “all the grounds submitted at the California Supreme Court for review and 

exhaustion[,]” (Ext. Mot. 2).

1 Accordingly, it appears that Petitioner has chosen the first 

option outlined in the Court’s prior Order. (See Prior Dismissal Order 3 (“Petitioner may 

file further papers with this Court to demonstrate that he has in fact exhausted the claims 

the Court has determined are unexhausted.”).) And although it is not entirely clear that 

Petitioner has in fact exhausted each claim, (compare Ext. Mot. 6–9 (potentially the pointheadings from the underlying habeas petition to the California Supreme Court, alleging 

that “cumulative prejudicial effect” or errors “denied [Petitioner] a fair trial under state and 

federal due process[,]” but nowhere mentioning any alleged failure by counsel to seek a 

mistrial), with Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus 20, 25 (Petitioner’s federal habeas petition 

arguing that “the cumulative effect of errors . . . violat[ed] . . . federal due process

/ / /

 

1 Petitioner’s latest filing, although dated July 6, 2017, (Ext. Mot. 1), was not received until July 14, 2017, 

and therefore is not timely pursuant to the Court’s Prior Dismissal Order, (see Prior Dismissal Order 6). 

However, it is clear that Petitioner attempted to at least partially comply with the Court’s directive, (see 

ECF No. 3), and Petitioner further notes in his Extension Motion that “the person who was helping 

[P]etitioner to file his habeas corpus [petition] was transferred to another prison, taking with him any 

documents filed in any court, without explaining [to] petitioner any of the document[s] [which had been] 

filed or any due dates[,]” (Ext. Mot. 1). Therefore, good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s 

Motion for an extension of time by which to respond to the Court’s Prior Dismissal Order.

Case 3:17-cv-00865-JLS-RBM Document 6 Filed 07/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

17cv865 JLS (PCL)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

principles” and that “Counsel violated [P]etitioner’s 6th Amend[ment rights] . . . whe[n] 

he failed to move for a mistrial”), ECF No. 1), the Court accepts Petitioner’s argument.

However, although Petitioner in his Extension Motion states that he “submits his 

$5.00 filing fee[,]” (Ext. Mot. 2), and attaches a Moneygram receipt for $5.00, (id. at 12), 

the Court has not received Petitioner’s $5.00 filing fee. Accordingly, Petitioner’s case 

REMAINS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. If Petitioner wishes to proceed with 

this case he must, no later than September 29, 2017, either (1) pay the $5.00 filing fee or 

(2) move to proceed in forma pauperis. If petitioner chooses to pay the $5.00 filing fee, he 

should submit the fee simultaneously with a copy of this Order and reference the case 

name—Miguel Angel Torres v. Warden Raymond Madden—as well as the case number—

17cv865-JLS (PCL). See also Fees of the U.S. District Court; 28 U.S.C. § 1914 and Local 

Rule 4.5, United States District Court (Feb. 8, 2017), https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/

Attorneys/SiteAssets/SitePages/FeesOfTheUSDistrictCourt/FEE%20SCHEDULE%20Ef

f%202-8-17.pdf (explaining Southern District of California filing fee amounts and 

payment procedures).

Additionally, although the Clerk of Court previously sent Petitioner a blank Southern 

District of California In Forma Pauperis Application, (see Prior Dismissal Order 6), the 

Clerk of Court SHALL send another blank form along with a copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 26, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-00865-JLS-RBM Document 6 Filed 07/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3