Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-07829/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-07829-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kendell Eatmon
Plaintiff
People of the State of Cal
Defendant

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENDELL EATMON,

Petitioner,

v.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CAL,

Respondent.

Case No. 19-cv-07829-HSG 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On November 29, 2019, petitioner filed a pleading titled “Requesting for a Stay in 

Obedience.” Dkt. No. 1. In this pleading, petitioner stated that on October 18, 2019, in Alameda 

County Superior Court Case No. 173422, Judge Hymer held a hearing to schedule a hearing to 

determine whether petitioner is eligible for resentencing pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 1170(d). 

Dkt. No. 1. Petitioner requested that the Court stay the “one year time limitation to file his federal 

habeas petition within this court on the return back to prison.” Dkt. No. 1. That same day, the 

Clerk notified petitioner that there was no habeas petition pending with this court; that the Court 

had opened his request for stay as a new action, case number 19-cv-07829 HSG; and that 

petitioner should submit a completed petition on the proper form by January 6, 2020, or the action 

would be dismissed. Dkt. No. 4. If, however, petitioner had not intended to file a civil action, he 

should so inform the Court by January 6, 2020. Dkt. No. 4. The Clerk also notified petitioner that 

he had failed to either pay the $5 filing fee required to open a federal habeas petition, or file an in 

forma pauperis application, and should do so by January 6, 2020, or this action would be 

dismissed. Dkt. No. 2. 

On December 9, 2019, petitioner informed the Court that while he did intend to file a civil 

action in this court, he simply sought an order staying the statute of limitations for filing a federal 

Case 4:19-cv-07829-HSG Document 9 Filed 01/31/20 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

habeas petition pending the outcome of state court proceedings but did not intend to file a federal 

habeas petition at the present time. Dkt. No. 5. 

The deadline has passed both (1) for either paying the filing fee or filing an in forma 

pauperis application, and (2) for filing a petition on the proper form. Petitioner has done neither. 

Accordingly, this action is dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee and to file a petition on the 

proper form. Any request to reopen this case must be accompanied by (1) either the full filing fee 

or an in forma pauperis application and (2) a habeas petition on the proper form.1

The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of respondent and close this file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 1/31/2020

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

1 Petitioner has stated that he intended to file a civil action that would stay the limitations period to 

file his federal habeas petition. In order to seek such a stay, petitioner must first file a federal 

habeas petition. Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 416 (2005) (prisoners who may run risk of 

federal statute of limitations expiring while they are exhausting their state remedies may avoid this 

predicament by filing a “protective” petition in federal court and asking federal court to stay and 

abey federal habeas proceedings until state remedies are exhausted). However, pursuant to the 

Younger abstention doctrine, a federal court may not intervene in state court proceedings. See 

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971) (under principles of comity and federalism, a federal 

court should not interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings by granting injunctive or 

declaratory relief absent extraordinary circumstances).

Case 4:19-cv-07829-HSG Document 9 Filed 01/31/20 Page 2 of 2