Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00387/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00387-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
A. J. Malfi
Respondent
Leonard Jessie Mitchell
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEONARD JESSIE MITCHELL, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

A. J. MALFI, WARDEN, )

)

Respondent. )

)

___________________________________ )

1: 06-CV- 0387 AWI WMW HC

ORDER REQUIRING

RESPONSE FROM

PETITIONER RE AMENDED

PETITION 

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se on a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in this court. On April 28, 2006, pursuant to an order of this

court, Petitioner filed a first amended petition naming the correct respondent. Pursuant to

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, this court has conducted a preliminary

review of the amended petition. In doing so, the court has found a defect in the amended

petition. Specifically, in stating each of his grounds for relief, Petitioner states only, “see

attached Points and Authorities.” However, there is nothing attached to the amended

petition. 

Case 1:06-cv-00387-PJH Document 10 Filed 02/20/07 Page 1 of 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 2

In reviewing the original petition, the court has found several pages of attachments. 

It appears that Petitioner may intend to have those attachments considered as part of his

amended petition as well. Accordingly, Petitioner is HEREBY ORDERED to inform the

court within twenty (20) days of the date of service of this order whether he so intends. If so,

Petitioner should file a motion requesting that the court consider the attachments to his

original petition as part of his amended petition. Petitioner’s failure to respond to this order

will result in findings and recommendations that this petition be dismissed for failure to state

a claim.

Petitioner’s motion for a stay remains pending and will be considered when the

present matter is resolved.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 16, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

bl0dc4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00387-PJH Document 10 Filed 02/20/07 Page 2 of 2