Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00749/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00749-1/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

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC WATKINS,

Petitioner,

v.

W.L. MUNIZ, Warden,

Respondent.

No. 1:16-cv-00749-AWI-SKO HC

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S 

MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE 

STATEMENT AND GRANTING 

PETITIONER 90 DAYS TO 

AMEND THE PETITION

(Doc. 11)

Petitioner Eric Watkins is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On July 18, 2016, Respondent W.L. Muniz, Warden 

of Salinas Valley State Prison, moved to dismiss the petition, contending that the allegations were 

too vague and too conclusory to state a claim or establish standing. In the alternative, Respondent 

moved for a more definite statement, claiming that the petition was too vague and ambiguous 

reasonably to allow Respondent to prepare a response. Petitioner subsequently moved for 

appointment of counsel, alleging that his developmental disability precludes his reading, writing 

and understanding legal materials. By separate order, the Court has appointed the Federal 

Defender to serve as counsel to Petitioner.

Case 1:16-cv-00749-AWI-SKO Document 14 Filed 10/07/16 Page 1 of 2
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

2

The Court finds merit in Respondent’s allegation that the petition for writ of habeas 

corpus (Doc. 1) is substantially incomplete, vague, and reflects multiple errors. In ordering 

Respondent to respond to the petition, however, the Court found that Petitioner’s claim that he 

had served his full sentence, but had not been released, to allege a cognizable claim. 

In light of the Court’s appointment of counsel for Petition and in the interest of justice, the 

Court DENIES Respondent’s motion to dismiss and GRANTS Respondent’s alternative motion 

for a more definite statement. Petitioner is hereby ORDERED to file, within 90 days of this 

order, an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 6, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00749-AWI-SKO Document 14 Filed 10/07/16 Page 2 of 2