Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-00338/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-00338-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

DARREL KING, 

 Petitioner, 

 vs. 

MATTHEW CATE, Secretary of the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 

 Respondent. 

Case No: C 10-0338 SBA (PR)

ORDER STRIKING 

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF 

AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT 

OF HABEAS CORPUS

On January 25, 2009, Petitioner, a state prisoner, filed a petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On February 17, 2010, the Court issued an Order to 

Show Cause directing respondent to answer the petition or file a motion to dismiss. On 

February 26, 2010, Petitioner, through counsel, filed a “1st Amended Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus,” which is accompanied by an 83-page memorandum of points and authorities. 

(Docket 8, 9.) 

Petitioner’s memorandum of points and authorities is in violation of Civil Local Rule 7, 

which limits briefs to a maximum of 25 pages. Because Petitioner’s brief well exceeds the 

page limit imposed by the Civil Local Rules, and because Petitioner has neither sought nor 

received leave to file an oversized brief, the Court strikes Petitioner’s memorandum from the 

record. See Swanson v. U.S. Forest Serv., 87 F.3d 339, 345 (9th Cir. 1996). However, the 

Court will afford Petitioner an opportunity to cure this deficiency and re-file a memorandum 

that complies with the rules of this Court. Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

1. Petitioner’s 1st Amended Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Support of 

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Docket 9) is STRICKEN from the record. Within 14 days 

Case 4:10-cv-00338-SBA Document 10 Filed 06/01/10 Page 1 of 3
- 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

of the date this Order is filed, Petitioner shall file a revised memorandum in compliance with 

the Court’s Local Rules. The Court will issue an amended Order to Show Cause upon receipt 

and review of the amended memorandum. The amended memorandum should take into 

account the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Hayward v. Marshall, --- F.3d ---, 2010 WL 

1664977 (9th Cir. Apr. 22, 2010) (en banc), which was rendered after Petitioner filed his 

memorandum. 

2. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order upon Respondent and 

Respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California. The Clerk shall also 

serve a copy of this Order on Petitioner’s counsel, Steve DeFilipis, 625 N. First St., San Jose, 

CA 95112.

3. The deadlines scheduled in the Court’s Order to Show Cause issued on February 

17, 2010 (Docket 6) are held in abeyance pending the Court’s issuance of an Amended Order 

to Show Cause. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 1, 2010 _______________________________ 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:10-cv-00338-SBA Document 10 Filed 06/01/10 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

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

G:\Sbalc2\Kei..\Prisoner\10-778 – King - Order to Show Cause.doc 

Case 4:10-cv-00338-SBA Document 10 Filed 06/01/10 Page 3 of 3