Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00119/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00119-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
D. L. Runnels
Respondent
Gregory Young
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY YOUNG, 

Petitioner,

v.

D. L. RUNNELS, Warden, 

Respondent. /

No. C 05-0119 JSW (PR)

SECOND ORDER OF DISMISSAL

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND AND

INSTRUCTIONS TO THE CLERK

(Docket no. 10)

Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of California, filed this action seeking a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his Alameda County Superior

Court conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. On April 14, 2005, this

Court dismissed the petition with leave to amend (docket no. 7). The amended petition is

now before the court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is

GRANTED (docket no. 10). 

Although Petitioner has now completed the Court’s standard form for a petition for

a writ of habeas corpus, the amended petition still does not identify each of Petitioner’s

claims separately. Therefore, the Court cannot determine how many separate claims

Petitioner is intending to raise in this Court. While Petitioner filled out the Court’s form, 

he has also written at the bottom “the petition before the Court clearly set forth the issues,

i.e., that Petitioner must not be made to serve time on the firearm after the case was

reversed” and attached another separate document entitled “petition for writ of habeas

Case 3:05-cv-00119-JSW Document 11 Filed 05/25/06 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

corpus.” However, the 39 page petition attached to the Court’s writ form appears to raise

claims not set forth on the Court’s application form. Petitioner does not clearly set forth

in either document which claims he wishes to raise in this Court, as opposed to in his

prior state appeals or collateral challenges. Nor does the petition specify that each of

Petitioner’s claims was previously exhausted in the state courts. 

 Because the claims in the attached petition are not the same as those in the Court’s

habeas petition form, the Court will again dismiss the petition with leave to amend. 

While Petitioner is free to submit whatever he wishes in support of the petition, he must

first clearly and separately set out each claim that he wants the Court to consider on the

Court’s petition form with a short statement of which constitutional right was violated

and whether he has previously exhausted that specific claim before the California

Supreme Court. Petitioner may then attach any other materials he wishes to include for

reference. However, if the number of claims Petitioner wants reviewed by this Court

exceeds the three spaces on the Court’s form, Petitioner must attach additional pages and

list each claim separately by number. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, the petition is dismissed with

leave to file an amended petition within thirty days of the date of this order in which

Petitioner completes this Court’s form habeas petition and presents only claims for

violations of his rights under the laws, treaties, or Constitution of the United States. Each

and every such claim must be separately numbered and must have been presented to the

California Supreme Court before it may be asserted in a federal habeas action. The

amended petition must contain the caption and civil case number used in this order and

the words SECOND AMENDED PETITION on the first page. Petitioner is reminded

that the amended petition must contain all claims he wishes to pursue. "[A] plaintiff

waives all causes of action alleged in the original complaint which are not alleged in the

amended complaint." London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981). 

It is Petitioner's responsibility to prosecute this case. He must keep the Court

Case 3:05-cv-00119-JSW Document 11 Filed 05/25/06 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

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed

“Notice of Change of Address.” He must comply with any orders of the Court within the

time allowed, or ask for an extension of that time. Failure to do so may result in the

dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 41(b). See Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b)

applicable in habeas cases). The Clerk shall provide Petitioner with a copy of this Court’s

form petition for a writ of habeas corpus along with this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 25, 2006

 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00119-JSW Document 11 Filed 05/25/06 Page 3 of 3