Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01543/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01543-9/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL GONZALES, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

SHRIBER, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:05-cv-01543-LJO-JLT HC

RENEWED ORDER TO AMEND PETITION

(Doc. 1)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

SEND PETITIONER BLANK FORM

PETITION

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The instant petition was filed on December

2, 2005. (Court Doc. 1). On April 3, 2007, the Court ordered Petitioner to file an amended

petition. (Doc. 21). In that order, the Court noted that Petitioner had failed to explain his

grounds for relief on the form petition and that the 215-page attachment to the petition was so

confusing that the Court could not discern the nature and number of claims Petitioner sought to

raise. (Id.). Without knowing the number and nature of claims being raised by Petitioner, the

Court could not proceed with the case. The order gave Petitioner thirty days within which to file

an amended petition. Petitioner requested, and received, several extensions of time within which

to file his amended petition, although no amended petition was ever filed. (Docs. 22 & 23). 

After the last extension of time was granted, the amended petition was due on July 9, 2007. 

1

Case 1:05-cv-01543-LJO -JLT Document 34 Filed 08/11/10 Page 1 of 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

However, on July 6, 2007, rather than simply filing the amended petition, Petitioner chose

instead to appeal the Court’s interlocutory order to the Ninth Circuit. (Doc. 25). This Court

denied a certificate of appealability because the order was interlocutory and non-appealable. 

(Doc. 26). The case has languished in the Ninth Circuit for over three years. On August 10,

2010, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal due to its lack of jurisdiction over an interlocutory

order. (Doc. 33). 

Accordingly, the proceedings are now precisely where they were on April 3, 2007, when

the Court first ordered Petitioner to file his amended petition. Petitioner will be afforded thirty

days within which to file his amended petition or a Recommendation to dismiss the petition will

be issued. Petitioner is reminded that he must fill out the form petition in its entirety. He may

include attachments, exhibits, legal argument, and other documents with his form petition, but

the form petition must be filled out in order to assist the Court in conducting its statutory

screening function.

ORDER

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. Petitioner SHALL FILE AN AMENDED PETITION succinctly and clearly

stating each Ground for Relief to which Petitioner claims he is entitled by filling

out the form petition in its entirety, within thirty (30) days of the date of service

of this order. The amended petition should be clearly and boldly titled

“AMENDED PETITION,” contain the appropriate case number, and be an

original signed under penalty of perjury. Petitioner should also note that every

pleading to which an amendment is permitted must be retyped or rewritten and

filed so that it is complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded

pleading. Local Rule 15-220. Petitioner may include attachments,

documents, exhibits, and legal arguments along with his form petition, but he

must complete the form petition in its entirety in addition to any

attachments.

2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Petitioner a blank form petition for

2

Case 1:05-cv-01543-LJO -JLT Document 34 Filed 08/11/10 Page 2 of 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

federal prisoners filing pursuant to § 2254. 

Petitioner is forewarned that his failure to comply with this order may result in a

Recommendation that the Petition be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 11, 2010 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

9j7khi UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

3

Case 1:05-cv-01543-LJO -JLT Document 34 Filed 08/11/10 Page 3 of 3