Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01687/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01687-0/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)

---

1

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

The instant petition was filed on November 5, 2015. (Doc. 1). In conducting a preliminary 

screening of the petition, the Court became aware of several facts. First, the petition is directed to the 

“California Supreme Court.” Second, the petition references another pending federal habeas petition, 

case number 1:13-cv-01538-BAM (“13-1538”). (Doc. 1, p. 17). 

In case number 13-1538, Petitioner filed his petition on September 16, 2013. On April 14, 

2015, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss, contending that five of the six claims in that petition were 

untimely. On October 22, 2015, the Court in that case ordered Petitioner to supplement the record 

with documentation that he had filed a petition or petitions in the California courts to exhaust claims 

two through six. That order gave Petitioner thirty days within which to file the supplemental 

documentation. 

SURGIO VALENCIA BALTAZAR,

 Petitioner,

v.

SCOTT FRAUENHEIM,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01687-JLT

ORDER REQUIRING PETITIONER TO FILE A 

RESPONSE CLARIFYING STATUS OF 

PETITION

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Case 1:15-cv-01687-JLT Document 4 Filed 11/12/15 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

As mentioned, the instant petition was filed on November 5, 2015 and is directed to the 

California Supreme Court. Thus, it is possible that Petitioner was attempting to comply with the 

October 22, 2015 order of the court in case number 13-1538 by submitting a copy of the state habeas 

petition he had previously filed with the California Supreme Court. If that is the case, then the Clerk 

of the Court inadvertently opened a new case, i.e., this case, assigned a case number to the instant 

petition in error, and the petition in this case should be re-filed in case number 13-1538 and this case 

should be closed.

On the other hand, Petitioner may have intended to file a new and separate petition raising 

entirely different claims in this case. In that event, the Court would proceed with this petition on its 

own merits independently of case number 13-1538.

In order to resolve this ambiguity and clarify the situation, Petitioner is ordered to file a 

response indicating what he intended to do with the petition in this case. Once the Court has reviewed 

Petitioner’s response, the Court will, in due course, take appropriate action.

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner is ORDERED to file a response within thirty days of the 

date of service of this order clarifying whether he intended the instant petition to initiate a new and 

independent habeas case or whether the instant petition was intended to supplement the record in case 

number 13-1538.

Petitioner is forewarned that failure to comply with the Court’s order may result in a 

recommendation that the petition be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s orders.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 12, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01687-JLT Document 4 Filed 11/12/15 Page 2 of 2