Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-01814/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-01814-0/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)

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTOINE TERRELL MOORE,

Petitioner,

v.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Respondent.

Case No. 19-cv-01814-JST 

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR 

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; 

DENYING CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY

Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at Mendocino County Jail, filed the instant pro se

petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a conviction from 

Mendocino County Superior Court. Dkt. No. 1. On July 22, 2019, the Court denied the amended 

petition’s first two claims because they alleged violations of state law and therefore failed to state 

cognizable claims for federal habeas relief. The Court dismissed the third claim, a claim of

ineffective assistance of counsel, as too conclusory to state a cognizable claim for federal habeas 

relief. Dkt. No. 11. The Court granted petitioner leave to file a second amended petition 

correcting this deficiency no later than August 19, 2019. The Court cautioned petitioner that 

failure to file a second amended petition by the deadline would result in the dismissal of this 

action for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Id. at 3-4. Petitioner 

has not filed a second amended petition, and the deadline by which to do so has passed. For the 

reasons stated in the order of dismissal with leave to amend, this petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus is DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief. The Court 

also finds that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing that he has been denied a 

constitutional right, and therefore DENIES a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 

2253(c)(2) (judge shall grant a certificate of appealability “only if the applicant has made a 

Case 4:19-cv-01814-JST Document 13 Filed 10/17/19 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right).

The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 17, 2019

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 4:19-cv-01814-JST Document 13 Filed 10/17/19 Page 2 of 2