Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-02606/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-02606-1/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

MIGUEL ANGEL CISNEROS,

Petitioner,

v.

JIM ROBERTSON, et al.,

Respondents.

Case No. 19-cv-02606-HSG 

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

Re: Dkt. No. 12

Petitioner, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison, filed this pro 

se action seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On July 25, 2019, the 

Court dismissed this petition as duplicative of Cisneros v. Robertson, No. C 18-01877 HSG (PR) 

(“Cisneros I”) because both petitions challenge the same conviction and appear to allege the same 

claims. Dkt. Nos. 10 and 11. Petitioner has filed a letter which the Court construes as a motion 

requesting reconsideration of the Court’s dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. No. 12. Petitioner argues that the Court erred in 

dismissing this action as duplicative of Cisneros I because Cisneros I has been dismissed for 

failure to exhaust state court remedies. Petitioner is incorrect. In Cisneros I, the Court has not yet 

ruled on the Respondent’s motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust state court remedies. Petitioner 

misunderstands the exhibits that he has attached to his motion for reconsideration. His second 

exhibit is the motion filed by Respondent in Cisneros I requesting the dismissal of Cisneros I for 

failure to exhaust court remedies. Dkt. No. 12 at 7. This pleading is not a court order. Rather it is 

a motion made by Respondent, which the Court must decide, and has not yet decided. His third 

exhibit is a copy of the docket sheet in Cisneros I. Petitioner has circled Docket Entry No. 45 in 

Cisneros I, and alleges that this docket entry is proof that Cisneros I was “dismissed for reason 

Case 4:19-cv-02606-HSG Document 13 Filed 08/09/19 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

claims not exhausted in state” (sic). Dkt. No. 12 at 11. Docket Entry No. 45 in Cisneros I is 

Petitioner’s opposition to Respondent’s motion to dismiss. See Cisneros I, Dkt. No. 45. The 

notation next to Docket Entry No. 45 identifies the pleading as “Traverse Motion of Responds re 

42 MOTION to Dismiss Habeas Petition for Failure to Exhaust State Court Remedies by Miguel

A. Cisneros).” Dkt. No. 12 at 11. Cisneros I is still pending. The Court did not err in dismissing

this action as duplicative. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 

This order terminates Dkt. No. 12. This case remains closed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 8/9/2019

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:19-cv-02606-HSG Document 13 Filed 08/09/19 Page 2 of 2