Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00521/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00521-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
George E. Cross
Petitioner
People Of California
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE E. CROSS, No. CIV S-10-0521-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. ORDER

PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On March 19, 2010, the court dismissed

petitioner’s original petition with leave to amend because petitioner had not named the proper

respondent. Petitioner was directed to file an amended petition within 30 days. As of April 26,

2010, petitioner had not complied and the court issued an order directing petitioner to show cause

why this action should not be dismissed. In a return filed on May 10, 2010, petitioner stated that

he filed a request for leave to amend shortly after the March 2010 order was issued. On May 14,

2010, the court issued an order discharging the order to show cause and providing petitioner an

additional opportunity to comply. The court stated:

. . . A review of the docket does indeed reflect that, on March 23,

Case 2:10-cv-00521-CMK Document 24 Filed 06/25/10 Page 1 of 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

2

2010, petitioner filed a document entitled “Request Leave to Amend” to

name Sheriff Sandra Hutchins as the proper respondent to this action. 

This request, however, does not constitute compliance with the court’s

March 19, 2010, order which directed petitioner to file an amended

petition, not to request leave to amend. Leave of court to amend is not

required because the court has specifically directed petitioner to file an

amended petition. The court will provide petitioner an additional

opportunity to submit an amended petition which sets forth his claims and

names the correct respondent. . . .

Apparently in response to this latest order, petitioner filed a one-page document entitled

“Amended Petition.” This document, however, is not a complete petition. Petitioner was

directed to file an amended petition which: (1) sets forth his claims; and (2) names the correct

respondent. To this end, the court forwarded to petitioner the form habeas application used in

this court. Instead of filing a complete petition as directed, petitioner has filed a document in

which he states: “Pursuant to this court’s order to amend the correct respondent, petitioner is now

following that order naming the Orange County Sheriff Sandra Hutchins as the respondent who

has custody over petitioner.” 

It does not appear that petitioner is unable to comply. To the contrary, it is

evident by the numerous miscellaneous filings by petitioner between March 24, 2010, and April

1, 2010, that petitioner is quite capable of preparing and filing documents. It thus appears that

petitioner is simply unwilling to comply with the court’s direction to file a single amended

petition setting forth his claims and naming the correct respondent. According, petitioner shall

show cause within 30 days of the date of this order why this action should not be dismissed for

lack of prosecution and failure to comply with the court’s orders. See Local Rule 110. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 25, 2010

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:10-cv-00521-CMK Document 24 Filed 06/25/10 Page 2 of 2