Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00661/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00661-3/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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CORNELIUS ANDERSON,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 11cv661-MMA (DHB)

ORDER CONFIRMING “DO NOT

FILE” STATUS AND DIRECTING

CLERK OF COURT

HENCEFORTH TO RETURN TO

PETITIONER ALL DOCUMENTS

SUBMITTED FOR FILING IN THIS

ACTION 

vs.

FOSTER, et al,

Respondent.

On March 14, 2011, Petitioner Cornelius Anderson, a state prisoner

proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2254. See Doc. No. 1. Petitioner complained that his personal property had been

confiscated in violation of his constitutional rights. The Court dismissed the petition

without prejudice for failure to name a proper respondent and failure to state a

cognizable federal habeas claim. See Doc. No. 8. The Court explained that

Petitioner’s claim might be brought more appropriately pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983. Id. The Court provided Petitioner with a blank Southern District of

California amended petition form and a blank Southern District of California 42

U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Complaint form, and instructed Petitioner to file an

amended petition if he wished to pursue his habeas action. Id. 

On April 20, 2011, Petitioner filed a document which the Court liberally

construed as an amended petition. See Doc. No. 10. The Court dismissed the

- 1 - 11cv661

Case 3:11-cv-00661-MMA-DHB Document 29 Filed 08/08/13 Page 1 of 4
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

amended petition without prejudice for failure to name a proper respondent and

failure to state a cognizable federal habeas claim. See Doc. No. 11. The Court

advised Petitioner to consider raising his claims in the context of a civil rights

action. Id. The Court granted Petitioner leave to file a second amended complaint

on or before June 17, 2011. Id. Thereafter, Petitioner submitted a series of barely

intelligible documents, which the Court rejected due to multiple filing discrepancies

and returned to Petitioner with instructions to file a second amended complaint. 

See Doc. Nos. 12-14. 

On May 18, 2011, Petitioner filed a document entitled “Affidavit” which was

also largely incomprehensible. See Doc. No. 16. On June 22, 2011, Petitioner filed

a document entitled “Response to Order Dismissing Case.” See Doc. No. 18.

Petitioner did not file a second amended petition. 

On August 7, 2012, Petitioner submitted a document that referenced

appointment of counsel, but was otherwise unintelligible. See Doc. No. 19. The

Court rejected the document as discrepant on this basis and because the case had

been dismissed and closed for more than a year. Id. In October 2012, Petitioner

submitted a document that referenced a temporary restraining order; in December

2012, Petitioner submitted a document seeking a restraining order and referencing

appointment of counsel; in January 2013, Petitioner submitted a document

requesting appointment of counsel; in March 2013, Petitioner submitted a document

with an illegible title; in April 2013, Petitioner submitted a document again seeking

appointment of counsel.1

 See Doc. Nos. 21-25. The Court rejected all of these

documents based on multiple filing discrepancies and because the case was closed. 

Id. 

1

 The Court notes that Petitioner filed a document on January 14, 2013, which the Court liberally construed as a request for a temporary restraining order and civil rights complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Civil Case No. 13cv117-MMA

(WVG). The Court dismissed the action sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) based on Petitioner’s failure to pay the required $350 filing fee. Because Petitioner has accumulated “three strikes” under section 1915(g), he may initiate a civil rights action, but must pay the requisite filing fee pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). 

- 2 - 11cv661

Case 3:11-cv-00661-MMA-DHB Document 29 Filed 08/08/13 Page 2 of 4
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

On June 18, 2013, Petitioner submitted a document via U.S. Mail directly to

the Chief Judge of the Southern District of California. Chief Judge Moskowitz

issued an order acknowledging receipt of the document and advising Petitioner that

the document was going to be referred to the undersigned. See Doc. No. 26. The

Court rejected the document based on multiple filing discrepancies, advised

Petitioner that no further filings in this case would be accepted, and instructed the

Clerk of Court to flag the case with a “Do Not File” warning. See Doc. No. 27. 

On August 6, 2013, Petitioner once again submitted a document via U.S. Mail

directly to Chief Judge Moskowitz, who referred the document to the undersigned

for consideration. See Doc. No. 28. The Court has reviewed Petitioner’s

submission. Petitioner complains that the undersigned has “racially profiled” him,

committed “horrifying” violations of his rights, and “crucified” his petition. 

Petitioner again requests appointment of counsel. Although Petitioner’s intent is

unclear, if Petitioner is attempting to file a complaint of judicial misconduct against

the undersigned, the Court advises Petitioner that such a complaint must be

submitted directly to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, not the Chief Judge of this

District. See 28 U.S.C. § 351 (complaints are to be filed with “the clerk of the court

of appeals for the circuit.”) (emphasis added). Therefore, direct submission of these

documents to Judge Moskowitz is wholly inappropriate.2

 

Accordingly, the Court rejects the document for filing based on the standing

order of this Court that no further filings in this action will be accepted. Sound

public policy requires that, at some point, litigation must come to an end. See, e.g.,

Old Person v. Brown, 312 F.3d 1036, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002). In this case, the

2

 Petitioner should note that cognizable misconduct does not include “an

allegation that is directly related to the merits of a decision or procedural ruling. . . If

the decision or ruling is alleged to be the result of an improper motive, e.g., a bribe, ex parte contact, racial or ethnic bias, or improper conduct in rendering a decision or

ruling, such as personally derogatory remarks irrelevant to the issues, the complaint is not cognizable to the extent that it attacks the merits.” See USCS Jud. Con. and Disab.

Proc. § 3. Thus, any claim of judicial misconduct based on merits of the Court’s order

dismissing this action will not be cognizable. 

- 3 - 11cv661

Case 3:11-cv-00661-MMA-DHB Document 29 Filed 08/08/13 Page 3 of 4
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

litigation ended more than two years ago when Petitioner failed to submit a petition

containing a cognizable federal habeas claim. 

The Clerk of Court is hereby directed henceforth to return to Petitioner

any document(s) submitted for filing in this action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 8, 2013

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

 

- 4 - 11cv661

Case 3:11-cv-00661-MMA-DHB Document 29 Filed 08/08/13 Page 4 of 4