Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02485/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02485-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Leroy Dale Holsey
Petitioner
Unknown
Respondent

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEROY DALE HOLSEY,

Petitioner,

v.

UNKNOWN,

Respondent.

No. 2:19-cv-02485 GGH P

ORDER

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis.

Petitioner’s in forma pauperis application does not make the showing required by 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Petitioner has failed to complete the entire first page of the application. See

ECF No. 2 at 1. Accordingly, petitioner will be afforded another opportunity to renew the in 

forma pauperis application in proper form. 

Rule 2 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides that the petition: “shall 

specify all the grounds for relief which are available to the petitioner and of which he has or by 

the exercise of reasonable diligence should have knowledge and shall set forth in summary form 

the facts supporting each of the grounds thus specified.” Rule 2(c), Rules Governing Section 

2254 Cases. Petitioner must also clearly state the relief sought in the petition. Id. Additionally, 

Case 2:19-cv-02485-JAM-GGH Document 4 Filed 01/06/20 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

27

28

2

the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 explains that “notice pleading is not sufficient, for the 

petition is expected to state facts that point to a real possibility of constitutional error.” Advisory 

Committee Notes to Rule 4; see Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75, n.7 (1977).

It appears petitioner seeks to challenge his 2011 conviction in Placer County Superior 

Court for failing to update his annual sexual offender registration with two prior strikes. For his 

grounds for relief, petitioner alleges 1) his conviction is “unconstitutional,” 2) “fact partial 

retardation,” 3) “10th year down,” and 4) “new laws.” ECF No. 1 at 5-10. It is unclear from the 

petition the federal claims and relief petitioner seeks to raise. Nor which “new laws” petitioner is 

alleging apply to him. In its present form, the petition fails to comply with Rule 2(c), Rules 

Governing Section 2254 Cases. Therefore, the petition is dismissed with leave to amend. Rule 4, 

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In the amended petition, petitioner must set forth each 

claim for relief and summarize the facts he alleges support each of the identified claims. 

Moreover, review of the court’s records reveals that petitioner has previously filed an 

application for a writ of habeas corpus attacking the conviction and sentence challenged in this 

case. The previous application was filed on May 15, 2013 and was denied on the merits on 

September 30, 2015. See Holsey v. Knipp, 2:13-cv-00962-KJM-GGH. If petitioner is seeking to 

attack once again the conviction and sentence previously challenged, before petitioner can 

proceed with the instant application, he must move in the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2244(b)(3). However, before the undersigned recommends dismissal of the pending petition as 

successive, petitioner will be granted an opportunity to amend his petition in compliance with the 

court’s instructions. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is DENIED without 

prejudice to its renewal with all entries on the form completed.

2. Petitioner is granted thirty days from the date of this order to renew the in forma 

pauperis application in proper form, or to pay the filing fee. Petitioner is cautioned that failure to

////

Case 2:19-cv-02485-JAM-GGH Document 4 Filed 01/06/20 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

27

28

3

timely renew the in forma pauperis in proper form, or to pay the filing fee, may result in a 

recommendation that this action be dismissed.

2. Petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed with leave to amend 

within thirty days from the date of this order;1

3. Any amended petition must bear the case number assigned to this action and the title 

“Amended Petition”; and

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send petitioner a copy of the in forma pauperis 

form used by this district and the court’s form application for writ of habeas corpus. 

Dated: January 3, 2020

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 1

 By setting this deadline the court is making no finding or representation that the petition is not 

subject to dismissal as untimely.

Case 2:19-cv-02485-JAM-GGH Document 4 Filed 01/06/20 Page 3 of 3