Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-05934/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-05934-0/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 09-4951 RS (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

*E-Filed 6/25/10*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

DAVID M. DAVID,

Petitioner,

v.

TIMOTHY LOCKWOOD, et al., 

Respondents. /

No. C 09-5934 RS (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

This is a federal habeas corpus action filed by a pro se state prisoner pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has filed three petitions with this Court. It is unclear which of

these is the operative petition. Accordingly, all the petitions (Docket Nos. 1, 9 & 12) are

DISMISSED with leave to amend. Petitioner must file an amended petition within 30 days

from the date this order is filed. In this amended petition, petitioner must provide sufficient

legal and factual basis for all of his claims, including the unexhausted one. Any claims that

are insufficiently alleged will be dismissed. The first amended petition must include the

caption and civil case number used in this order (09-4951 RS (PR)) and the words THIRD

AMENDED PETITION on the first page. 

Case 5:09-cv-05934-LHK Document 13 Filed 06/25/10 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 09-4951 RS (PR)

2 ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

Because an amended petition completely replaces the previous petitions,

petitioner must include in his third amended petition all the claims he wishes to present.

 Petitioner may not incorporate material from the prior petition by reference. In other

words, the Court will look exclusively at the third amended complaint, and not to any other

filings, to determine what claims petitioner is alleging. 

Petitioner is reminded that he can challenge only one of his convictions in this Court. 

In the second amended petition, petitioner challenges a 1991 conviction in Alameda County,

and a 2006 conviction in Los Angeles County. The appropriate venue for the Alameda

County conviction is indeed in this Court. But, the appropriate venue for the Los Angeles

County conviction is the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Petitioner,

then, is directed to file any claims related to the Los Angeles County conviction with the

Central District. The third amended petition filed with this Court should include claims

related solely to the Alameda County conviction. Any unrelated claims will be dismissed. 

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

dismissal of this action without further notice to petitioner. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 25, 2010 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 5:09-cv-05934-LHK Document 13 Filed 06/25/10 Page 2 of 2