Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01678/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01678-0/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

No. C 16-1678 RS (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

CHARLES ANTHONY BROOKS,

Petitioner,

v.

SAVAS JAMES LOUKEDIS, 

Respondent. /

No. C 16-1678 RS (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

This federal action was filed as a petition for writ of habeas corpus, that is, as a

challenge to the lawfulness or duration of petitioner’s incarceration. A review of the petition,

however, shows that respondent is not the warden of the prison in which petitioner is housed,

that is, the traditional person an inmate sues for release from confinement, but rather the

state-appointed defense attorney who represented him. 

This raises the question whether petitioner seeks release from incarceration or money

damages from his attorney. The first must be brought as a habeas petition. The second as a

civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Petitioner must decide which sort of action he is

pursuing and then inform the Court. If he wishes to challenge his convictions, he must name

in his amended petition the warden of his current prison as the sole respondent. If he wishes

Case 3:16-cv-01678-RS Document 7 Filed 05/23/16 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

No. C 16-1678 RS (PR)

2 ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

to sue his defense attorney, he must file a separate action under § 1983. 

Accordingly, the petition is DISMISSED with leave to file an amended petition on or

before June 20, 2016. No extensions of time will be granted. The amended petition must

include the caption and civil case number used in this order (16-1678 RS (PR)) and the words

FIRST AMENDED PETITION on the first page. Because an amended petition completely

replaces the previous petition, petitioner must include in his amended petition all the claims

he wishes to present. He may not incorporate material from the prior petition by reference. 

Failure to file an amended petition in accordance with this order will result in dismissal of

this action with prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

41(b). 

 The Court notes petitioner has provided updated information on his ability to pay the

filing fee, which the Court construes as a renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis

(“IFP”). Because this new information shows that petitioner lacks the current ability to pay

the filing fee, his motion to proceed IFP is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 23, 2016 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-01678-RS Document 7 Filed 05/23/16 Page 2 of 2