Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00049/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00049-3/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

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

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The instant petition was filed on January 11, 2013. After a preliminary review of the petition 

indicated that it contained only unexhausted claims, on January 23, 2013, the Court issued an Order to 

Show Cause why the petition should not be dismissed as entirely unexhausted. (Doc. 3). That Order 

to Show Cause gave Petitioner thirty days within which to file a response. Petitioner has never filed a 

response to the Order to Show Cause.

However, on February 22, 2013, Petitioner filed a motion to amend the petition, indicating that 

he wished to amend the original petition to include newly exhausted claims. (Doc. 6). Petitioner did 

not identify those claims he was exhausting or had exhausted, nor did he indicate whether those claims 

STANLEY CLARKE,

 Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, MADERA

COUNTY PROBTION DEPARTMENT,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-00049-JLT

ORDER REQUIRING PETITIONER TO FILE 

RESPONSE

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

Case 1:13-cv-00049-LJO-JLT Document 20 Filed 09/13/13 Page 1 of 3
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

were the same claims as those contained in the original petition or instead were new claims never 

before presented to this Court. Also on February 22, 2013, Petitioner filed a motion to stay 

proceedings pending exhaustion of certain claims which, again, were never identified. (Doc. 7). Once 

again, Petitioner failed to explain whether the stay was simply until he finished exhausting the claims 

already raised in the original petition, or whether he was now seeking to exhaust additional new claim. 

On March 21, 2013, Petitioner filed a second motion to amend the petition, which again did not 

identify the claims Petitioner was seeking to exhaust. The motion appears to be entirely duplicative of 

the motion to amend filed on February 22, 2013. 

On March 1, 2013, Petitioner filed a motion to disqualify United States District Judge assigned 

to this case, Hon. Lawrence O’Neill. (Doc. 8). The Court issued an order denying the motion to 

disqualify on March 6, 2013. (Doc. 10). On March 21, 2013, before the Court could rule on 

Petitioner’s pending motions to amend and motion to stay, Petitioner filed an unauthorized 

interlocutory appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on March 21, 2013. 

(Doc. 13). At that point, this Court was divested of jurisdiction to proceed on the petition. On June 

20, 2013, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal as an improper interlocutory appeal and mandate 

issued on July 16, 2013, thus returning jurisdiction to this Court. (Docs. 16 & 17).

Upon the return of jurisdiction to this Court, the Court re-assessed the case’s procedural 

posture but was still unable to discern precisely what Petitioner wished to do regarding his various 

exhausted and unexhausted claims. Accordingly, on August 8, 2013, the Court issued an order 

requiring Petitioner to file a response within thirty days that would indicate which claims had been 

exhausted and whether Petitioner wished to exhaust additional unexhausted claims. On September 6, 

2013, Petitioner filed a response to the Court’s August 8, 2013 order, indicating that he had fully 

exhausted both his original and all new claims, that he wished to file an amended petition containing

his exhausted claims, and that a stay of proceedings was no longer required. (Doc. 19). 

ORDER

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Petitioner is ordered, within thirty days of the date of service of this order, to file a first 

Case 1:13-cv-00049-LJO-JLT Document 20 Filed 09/13/13 Page 2 of 3
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

27

28

amended petition containing all of the exhausted claims upon which Petitioner wishes to 

proceed. Petitioner is advised that the document should be entitled “First Amended 

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.” The First Amended Petition will supersede the 

original petition and the original petition will be of no further legal effect in these 

proceedings. The First Amended Petition must be complete within itself and without 

reference to the original petition. Petitioner is advised that the amended petition must set 

forth all of Petitioner’s claims, including all the facts and arguments in support of those 

claims. Petitioner must allege constitutional violations which are cognizable on federal 

habeas review.

2. Petitioner’s motion to stay proceedings (Doc. 7) and motion for leave to amend (Doc. 11) 

are HEREBY DISREGARDED as moot. 

Petitioner is forewarned that his failure to comply with this Order may result in an 

Order of Dismissal or a Recommendation that the petition be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 

110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 13, 2013 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00049-LJO-JLT Document 20 Filed 09/13/13 Page 3 of 3