Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01459/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01459-2/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

18cv1459-GPC(JLB)

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

LUIS SANDOVAL,

Petitioner,

v.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF 

DEPARTMENT AND WILLIAM GORE,

Respondents.

Case No.: 18cv1459-GPC(JLB)

ORDER REJECTING DOCUMENT 

AND GRANTING PETITIONER A 

FINAL OPPORTUNITY TO FILE AN 

AMENDED PETITION

On June 26, 2018, Petitioner Luis Sandoval, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for 

writ of habeas corpus and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. Nos. 1, 

2.) On July 12, 2018, Petitioner filed three hand-written, single spaced, mostly illegible

letters. (Dkt. Nos. 4, 6, 8.) On July 13, 2018, Petitioner also filed what the Court 

construed as a Supplemental to Petition which is also illegible. (Dkt. No. 10.) On July 

18, 2018, after a review of these documents, the Court denied Petitioner’s in forma 

pauperis application and dismissed the petition without prejudice. (Dkt. No. 11.) The 

Court explained Petitioner had failed to provide the required Prison Certificate as part of 

his request to proceed in forma pauperis. (Id. at 1.) Next, the Court noted that Petitioner 

is “largely illegible and lacks coherence” and failed to assert that he is “in custody in 

violation of the Constitution or law or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. 2254.” (Id.

Case 3:18-cv-01459-GPC-JLB Document 20 Filed 10/11/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18cv1459-GPC(JLB)

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

at 2.) Finally, the Court noted that Petitioner failed to allege exhaustion of state judicial 

remedies. (Id. at 3-5.) 

Since then, Petitioner has continuously sent letters to the Court that have been 

rejected with a Notice of Document Discrepancy indicating that the documents are

illegible pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5.3, that the case was dismissed on July 18, 2018, 

and to reopen the case, Petitioner must pay the filing fee or provide adequate proof of his 

inability to pay and file a first amended petition. (Dkt. Nos. 12, 13.) Additional illegible 

letters were rejected by the Court. (Dkt. Nos. 14, 15, 16, 17.) 

On August 23, 2018, the Court issued an order rejecting a document Petitioner 

attempted to file because it was again illegible and did not correct the deficiencies the 

Court noted in its order of July 18, 2018. (Dkt. Nos. 18, 18-1.) The Court explained that

“[i]n order to reopen the case, Petitioner MUST provide a legible first amended petition, 

with the required Prison Certificate if he seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, allege he is 

“in custody in violation of the Constitution or law or treaties of the United States” with 

supporting facts, and properly allege exhaustion of state remedies as explained in the 

Court’s July 18, 2018 order.” (Dkt. No. 18 at 2.) The Court also directed the Clerk of 

Court to mail another blank Prisoner Packet together with a copy of the Order and a copy 

of the Court’s July 18, 2018 order detailing the deficiencies in his petition. (Id.) The 

Court directed that Petitioner file an “Amended Petition curing the deficiencies noted in 

the Court’s July 18, 2018 order no later than September 28, 2018.” (Id.) Petitioner was 

also advised that “if he fails to comply with the Court’s order this action may be 

subject to dismissal for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Court’s 

order. (Id. (emphasis in original).) 

Since the Court’s order of August 23, 2018, Petitioner has not filed an Amended 

Petition curing the deficiencies as required by the deadline of September 28, 2018. 

Instead, Petitioner continues to submit documents that are completely illegible. (Dkt. 

Nos. 19, 19-1.) The Court is also in possession of two additional documents that are 

Case 3:18-cv-01459-GPC-JLB Document 20 Filed 10/11/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18cv1459-GPC(JLB)

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

wholly illegible and do not cure the deficiencies in his Petition. Accordingly, the Court 

REJECTS these documents as illegible. 

District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and in exercising

that power, they may impose sanctions which includes dismissal of the case. Ferdik

v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Thompson v. Hous. Auth., 782

F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 829 (1986)). The Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure (“Rule”) provides for dismissal of a case for a party’s failure to comply with a

court order. Rule 41(b) allows the district court to dismiss an action for failing to comply

with a court order. Ferdik, 963 at 1260; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Local Civil Rule 41.1 

provides for dismissal of a case for lack of prosecution. CivLR 41.1 

Petitioner has failed to timely file an Amended Petition and continuously attempts 

to file documents that are illegible despite the Court’s admonition. Therefore, the Court 

GRANTS Petitioner one final opportunity to file an Amended Petition on or before 

November 3, 2018. The Court warns Petitioner that failure to timely file an Amended 

Petition by November 3, 2018, WILL BE CONSTRUED AS EITHER HIS 

CONSENT TO DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

OR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER WARRANTING 

DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION WITH PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO FED. R. 

CIV. P. 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 11, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-01459-GPC-JLB Document 20 Filed 10/11/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3