Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00488/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00488-6/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE E. CROSS,

NO. CIV. S-09-0488 LKK/KJM P

Petitioner,

v.

O R D E R

MICHAEL CORONA, et al.,

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in pro se. On 

March 16, 2010, petitioner telephoned chambers in what petitioner

conceded was an ex parte communication. Petitioner left a

voicemail message contending that this court’s order of March 9,

2010 was in error, and explaining that petitioner was calling

because the matter was too urgent to permit him to make a paper

filing.

The March 9, 2010 order adopted the findings and

recommendations issued on January 8, 2010, and thereby denied

petitioner’s request for a writ of mandate as to the Orange County

Case 2:09-cv-00488-LKK -KJM Document 47 Filed 03/18/10 Page 1 of 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

2

Superior Court, to the state Court of Appeal for the Fourth

Appellate District, and to various participants in the Orange

County criminal justice system. Petitioner contends that this

order was somehow inappropriate in light of the findings and

recommendations issued on March 2, 2010. The only connection

between the March 2, 2010 findings and recommendations and this

court’s March 9 order seems to be that on January 27, 2010,

petitioner filed a second request for a writ of mandate regarding

investigation of the Orange County Sheriff, and that the March 2

findings and recommendations recommended denying this request for

the same reasons given in the January 8 findings and

recommendations. Accordingly, there is no merit to petitioner’s

contention that the March 2, 2010 findings and recommendations

somehow rendered this court’s March 9, 2010 order erroneous.

More broadly, petitioner is instructed to file all future

communications with the court through the normal process. See E.D.

Cal. Local Rule 133(b)(2). Failure to comply with the local rules

may result in a sanction, including dismissal of the case. Local

Rule 110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 18, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-00488-LKK -KJM Document 47 Filed 03/18/10 Page 2 of 2