Dumont v. Price

Full title: RALPH E. DUMONT, Petitioner, v. JEROME PRICE, et al., Respondents.

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Aug 11, 2015

2:13-CV-2541-CMK-P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2015)

Opinion

RALPH E. DUMONT, Petitioner, v. JEROME PRICE, et al., Respondents. No. 2:13-CV-2541-CMK-P United States District Court, E.D. California. August 11, 2015

          ORDER

          CRAIG M. KELLISON, Magistrate Judge.

         Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

         On July 24, 2015, the court issued an order directing petitioner to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with prior court orders and court rules. In that order, the court outlined the following procedural history:

Petitioner commenced this action with a petition (Doc. 1) followed by numerous separately filed supplements and exhibits (see Docs. 7, 13, 17, 18, 20, and 21). On February 24, 2014, the court dismissed petitioner's petition and directed petitioner to file an amended petition within 30 days naming the correct respondent. Petitioner was cautioned that his amended petition must state all claims and requests for relief. Petitioner was also warned that failure to file an amended petition may result in dismissal of this action for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and orders. See Local Rule 110.

Petitioner then filed a first amended petition (Doc. 23) followed again by separately filed supplements (see Docs. 25, 26, 28, and 30). On July 25, 2014, the court dismissed the first amended petition and struck from the docket the various supplements. Petitioner was once again directed to file an amended petition naming the proper respondent as well as stating all claims and providing all supporting documents and exhibits in a single pleading. As with the court's previous order, petitioner was also again cautioned that failure to comply could result in dismissal of the action. See Local Rule 110.

Petitioner filed his next amended petition on August 22, 2014 (Doc. 34). As before, petitioner followed this filing with separately filed supplements (see Docs. 36 and 37). Once again, by order issued on October 30, 2014, the court dismissed the amended petition, struck the various supplements, and directed petitioner to file an amended petitioner containing all claims and supporting evidence in a single pleading. Again, petitioner was warned that failure to comply could result in dismissal of the action under the court's local rules. Petitioner thereafter sought and was granted two extensions of time.

Petitioner filed his most recent amended petition, this time naming the correct respondent, on February 6, 2015 (Doc. 42). Three weeks later petitioner filed supporting exhibits (Doc. 44)....

         In his response to the order to show cause, petitioner states that Docs. 42 and 44 were filed separately due to a clerical error and confusion caused by ongoing mental problems as well as the death of petitioner's father in February 2015.

         Good cause appearing therefor, the order to show cause will be discharged and petitioner will be granted one final opportunity to comply with the court's prior orders to file in a single pleading a petition outlining all his claims and attaching all his exhibits. Petitioner is once again warned that failure to comply may result in dismissal of the action. See Local Rule 110.

         Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

         1. The July 24, 2015, order to show cause is discharged;

         2. Petitioner's amended petition (Doc. 42) is dismissed with leave to amend;

         3. Petitioner's supporting exhibits (Doc. 44) are disregarded; and

         4. Petitioner shall file a single amended petition containing all claims and exhibits within 30 days of the date of this order.