Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00565/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00565-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM HENRY PRICE,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-0565 LKK KJM P

vs.

JOHN C. MARSHALL, et al., 

Respondents. ORDER AND

 / FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, is proceeding with an application

for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On January 9, 2007, the court gave petitioner

thirty days’ leave to file a second amended habeas application. Among other things, the court

informed petitioner that he must file his second amended application on the form provided to

him by the Clerk of the Court and that he must fill out the form completely and accurately. 

Petitioner was warned that if he did not follow the court’s instructions, this action could be

dismissed without prejudice.

Petitioner filed his second amended application on January 22, 2007. Again,

petitioner has not filled out the form completely or accurately. From the language of the form it

is impossible to tell whether petitioner has exhausted state court remedies with respect to his

claims as is required under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1) before habeas relief can be granted. In light

Case 2:06-cv-00565-LKK -KJM Document 34 Filed 05/02/07 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

2

of the fact that petitioner has failed to follow court orders, and that petitioner apparently has not

exhausted state court remedies with respect to his claims, the court will recommend that this

action be dismissed. See id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

Petitioner has filed motions titled “Motion To Enforce Subpoena And Compel

Production,” “Motion For Leave To Conduct Discovery Prior To Planning Meeting,” “Motion

For Pretrial Conference,” “Motion For Evidentiary Hearing” and “Motion To Request That The

Federal Court Refer This Complaint To The Federal Community Relations . . .” In light of the

foregoing, and because none of these motions are proper at this stage of this case, they will all be

denied.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s January 22, 2007 “Motion to Enforce Subpoena and Compel

Production” is denied.

 2. Petitioner’s January 22, 2007 “Motion For Leave To Conduct Discovery Prior

To Planning Meeting ” is denied.

3. Petitioner’s January 26, 2007 “Motion For Pretrial Conference” is denied.

4. Petitioner’s February 15, 2007 “Motion For Evidentiary Hearing” is denied.

5. Petitioner’s February 27, 2007 “Motion To Request That The Federal Court

Refer This Complaint To The Federal Community Relations . . .” is denied. 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without

prejudice.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the

/////

Case 2:06-cv-00565-LKK -KJM Document 34 Filed 05/02/07 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

3

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: May 1, 2007. 

1

pric5654.frs(1.22.07) 

Case 2:06-cv-00565-LKK -KJM Document 34 Filed 05/02/07 Page 3 of 3