Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01687/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01687-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Surgio Valencia Baltazar
Petitioner
Scott Frauenheim
Respondent

Document Text:

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

The instant petition was filed on November 5, 2015. (Doc. 1). In conducting a preliminary 

screening of the petition, the Court became aware of several facts. First, the petition is directed to the 

“California Supreme Court.” Second, the petition references another pending federal habeas petition, 

case number 1:13-cv-01538-BAM (“13-1538”). (Doc. 1, p. 17). 

In case number 13-1538, Petitioner filed his petition on September 16, 2013. On April 14, 

2015, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss, contending that five of the six claims in that petition were 

untimely. On October 22, 2015, the Court in that case ordered Petitioner to supplement the record 

with documentation that he had filed a petition or petitions in the California courts to exhaust claims 

two through six. That order gave Petitioner thirty days within which to file the supplemental 

documentation. 

Because it was possible that Petitioner was attempting to comply with the October 22, 2015 

order of the court in case number 13-1538 by submitting a copy of the state habeas petition he had 

SURGIO VALENCIA BALTAZAR,

 Petitioner,

v.

SCOTT FRAUENHEIM,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01687-JLT

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF THE COURT TO 

FILE THE INSTANT PETITION AS A 

SUPLLEMENTATION OF THE RECORD IN 

CASE NO. 1:13-CV-01538-BAM

ORDER DISMISSING THE CASE

Case 1:15-cv-01687-JLT Document 7 Filed 01/08/16 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

previously filed with the California Supreme Court, rather than opening a new habeas corpus case in 

this action, the Court ordered Petitioner to file a “clarification” of his intentions. (Doc. 4). On 

December 17, 2015, Petitioner filed his response, indicating that he indeed was attempting to 

supplement the record in case number 13-1538 and did not intend that a new habeas corpus case be 

opened. (Doc. 6). 

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS:

1. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to file the instant petition as a supplementation of 

the record in case number 1:13-cv-01538-BAM;

2. The instant case is DISMISSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 7, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01687-JLT Document 7 Filed 01/08/16 Page 2 of 2