Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00187/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00187-13/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL ALLEN YOCOM,

Petitioner,

v.

KATHLEEN ALLISON,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:21-cv-00187-NONE-HBK

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

CONSTRUED UNAUTHORIZED PLEADING 

(Doc. No. 34)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION 

FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING

(Doc. No. 34)

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 

PETITIONER’S MOTION TO SERVE 

RESPONDENT

(Doc. No. 34)

Petitioner Michael Allen Yocom, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has pending a 

petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1). Before the court is 

Petitioner’s motion “to clarify language of the petition and mistakes,” motion to “have respondent

served” and motion for “immediate emergency evidentiary hearing.” (Doc. No. 34). On May 10, 

2021, the court directed Respondent to file a response to the petition. (Doc. No. 23). 

Respondent’s response is not yet due. (See Doc. No. 23 at 2, directing response within sixty 

days). As explained below, the court denies petitioner any relief requested in his motion and 

warns him that future duplicative motions may subject him to sanctions.

Case 1:21-cv-00187-JLT-HBK Document 40 Filed 05/26/21 Page 1 of 4
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

1. Unauthorized Pleading

Although framed as a motion to “clarify” the petition to correct “mistakes,” Petitioner 

simply rehashes the reasons why he believes his underlying conviction is illegal. (See generally

Doc. No. 34). The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts

provide for the filing of a habeas petition (Rule 2), an answer, and a reply (Rule 5). Additional 

briefing may be permitted upon a court order to expand the record (Rule 7). Here, Petitioner 

submits a pleading which repeats many of the arguments he has made in his petition. (Compare 

Doc. No. 1 with Doc. No. 34). The court has not ordered Petitioner to submit any additional 

briefing. To the extent Petitioner wishes to re-raise any arguments in support of his petition, he 

may do so in his reply to respondent’s response. Therefore, the court denies the motion as an 

unauthorized pleading. 

2. Motion to Serve Respondent

Petitioner in the title only of his motion requests the court to serve respondent. (Doc. No. 

34 at 1). As noted above, the court has already directed the Respondent to respond to the petition. 

(Doc. No. 23). And, Respondent’s response to the petition is not yet due. (Id.). Accordingly,

this aspect of Petitioner’s request is denied as moot.

3. Motion for Evidentiary Hearing

Again, in the title Petitioner indicates he is seeking an emergency evidentiary hearing. 

This aspect of his motion is denied for the reasons stated in the court’s previous orders denying 

Petitioner’s motions for evidentiary hearings. (Doc. Nos. 8, 20, 33). Evidentiary hearings are

granted only under limited circumstances in habeas proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 

2254(e)(2)(A)(ii). Because no response to the petition has yet been filed, it is premature to hold 

an evidentiary hearing. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, R. 8(a). 

4. Warning to Petitioner

The court notes that Petitioner has filed numerous requests to this court, including five 

motions for evidentiary hearings (Doc. Nos. 6, 14, 18, 31, 34) and three unauthorized pleadings. 

(Doc. Nos. 27, 32, 34). Most of Petitioner’s filings are styled as “emergency” motions; 

however, the court has found that the content of the filings do not constitute emergencies. (Doc. 

Case 1:21-cv-00187-JLT-HBK Document 40 Filed 05/26/21 Page 2 of 4
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

3

No. 33). In each of its orders either denying Petitioner relief or striking unauthorized pleadings 

from the record, the court has provided Petitioner with the pertinent procedural information 

related to his filings. (See, e.g., Doc. Nos. 8, 20, 28, 33). Yet, Petitioner has persisted in filing 

repetitive motions and pleadings. The court immediately undertakes a review of a pleading 

labeled an “emergency,” which wastes valuable and limited judicial resources. 

“Flagrant abuse of the judicial process cannot be tolerated because it enables one person 

to preempt the use of judicial time that properly could be used to consider the meritorious claims 

of other litigants.” Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1057 (9th Cir. 2007). 

And this court has “long labored under one of the heaviest caseloads in the nation.” See Standing 

Order in Light of Ongoing Judicial Emergency in Eastern District of California.1 Courts have the 

discretion to manage its own docket. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992) 

(Ninth Circuit noting that “[i]t is incumbent upon us to preserve the district courts’ power to 

manage their dockets without being subject to the endless vexatious noncompliance of 

litigants.”). Moreover, as previously noted, the rules governing habeas petitions direct that 

habeas pleadings include a petition, answer, and reply only. See R. Governing Section 2254 

Cases 2, 5.

The court finds that Petitioner’s repetitive filings seeking the same forms of relief, which 

have already been denied by the court, to constitute an abuse of judicial process. Such continued 

filings may prompt the court to sanction petitioner. Such sanctions may include ordering the 

clerk’s office to refrain from docketing any further filings until the court has reviewed them 

and/or ordering the Petitioner so show cause why the petition should not be dismissed for abuse 

of judicial process. 

Many of Petitioner’s unauthorized pleadings either repeat or expand upon arguments 

raised in his original petition. Arguments based on Petitioner’s original claims may be addressed 

in Petitioner’s reply to Respondent’s response to his petition. To the extent Petitioner wishes to 

raise new claims from those raised in his original petition, he should move to file an amended 

1 Available at: http://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/assets/File/Standing%20Order%20CV.pdf; last 

accessed May 25, 2021. 

Case 1:21-cv-00187-JLT-HBK Document 40 Filed 05/26/21 Page 3 of 4
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

4

petition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). Any new claims raised in an amended 

petition must have been exhausted in the state courts and be timely, meaning that the claims are 

either filed within AEDPA’s statute of limitations or that they relate back to the claims raised in 

the original petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c). 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 

1. Petitioner’s motion (Doc. No. 34) is DENIED in its entirety. His motion to 

clarify, which merely rehashes arguments raised in his petition, is DENIED as an 

unauthorized pleading (Doc. No. 34). 

2. Petitioner’s motion for evidentiary hearing (Doc. No. 34) is DENIED.

3. Petitioner’s motion to serve respondent (Doc. No. 34) is DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 25, 2021 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-00187-JLT-HBK Document 40 Filed 05/26/21 Page 4 of 4