Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02328/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02328-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
M.E. Spearman
Respondent
Kane Michael Thompson
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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KANE MICHAEL THOMPSON,

Petitioner,

v.

M.E. SPEARMAN,

Respondent.

No. 2:19-cv-2328 KJM DB P

ORDER

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed an 

application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1). The matter 

was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local 

Rule 302.

Before this court is respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition. (ECF No. 9). For the 

reasons stated herein, the court will deny the motion without prejudice, and it will direct 

petitioner to file a first amended petition.

I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On December 6, 2019, respondent was ordered to file a response to the instant petition 

within sixty days. (ECF No. 5). On January 31, 2020, respondent filed the instant motion to 

dismiss. (ECF No. 9). In support of the motion, respondent ultimately asserts that the manner in 

which petitioner has filled out the petition form makes it unclear precisely which claims petitioner 

Case 2:19-cv-02328-DJC-DB Document 12 Filed 03/03/20 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

wishes to raise on federal habeas appeal. (See id. at 1). As a result, respondent contends, the 

petition should be summarily dismissed for failure to state a claim, or in the alternative, the court 

should identify petitioner’s federal claims for respondent. (See id. at 2).

II. DISCUSSION

This court is obligated to construe a pro se litigant’s pleadings liberally. See Estelle v. 

Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (stating pro se documents are to be liberally construed). A pro 

se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal 

pleadings drafted by lawyers and can only be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it appears 

beyond doubt that he can prove no set of facts in support of his claims which would entitle him to 

relief. See id. at 106 (internal quotation marks omitted) (citations omitted).

To this end, when reviewing petitioner’s pleading, the court inferred that petitioner’s four 

claims that he made on direct appeal, were the same claims he intended to raise in this action. 

The claims attached to the petition form clearly state grounds for relief, and they provide 

supporting facts for those grounds. (See generally ECF No. 1 at 5-36).

Nevertheless, to the extent that respondent asserts that he is unable to determine which 

claims the federal petition raises, the court takes his concerns at face value. As a result, it will 

direct petitioner to file an amended petition which more clearly identifies the claims he intends to 

raise in this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) (permitting leave to amend when justice so 

requires).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss, filed January 31, 2020 (ECF No. 9), is DENIED 

without prejudice;

2. Within thirty days of the date of this order, petitioner shall file a first amended 

complaint which clearly identifies which claims he intended to raise in this action;

3. Within thirty days of the date of service of petitioner’s first amended complaint, 

respondent shall file a response to the pleading, and

////

////

Case 2:19-cv-02328-DJC-DB Document 12 Filed 03/03/20 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

4. The Clerk of Court shall send petitioner a copy of this court’s Petition for a Writ of 

Habeas Corpus By A Person in State Custody.

Dated: March 2, 2020

DLB:13

DB/ORDERS/ORDERS.PRISONER.HABEAS/thom2328.hab.mtd.den

Case 2:19-cv-02328-DJC-DB Document 12 Filed 03/03/20 Page 3 of 3