From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hill v. Cate

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Nov 15, 2011
No. C-11-4890 TEH (PR) (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2011)

Opinion

No. C-11-4890 TEH (PR)

11-15-2011

CHAZARUS HILL, SR., Petitioner, v. MATTHEW CATE, Secretary, Respondent.


ORDER DISMISSING ACTION AS FILED IN ERROR; NO FILING FEE DUE; INSTRUCTIONS TO THE CLERK

The above-entitled action relates to an earlier action filed by Petitioner, a pro se Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a judgment of conviction from Alameda County Superior Court. The earlier-filed action was docketed as Hill v. State of California, No. 09-cv-03147-TEH (PR) (N.D. Cal. filed July 10, 2009). The Court ultimately stayed that action and closed it administratively to allow Petitioner to exhaust all of his claims in state court. See Hill v. State of California, No. 09-cv-03147-TEH (PR) (N.D. Cal. filed July 10, 2009) (Doc. #13). On September 22, 2011, the Court granted Petitioner's request to lift the stay and reopened the action. See Id., Doc. #21. The Court gave Petitioner until October 28, 2011 to file an amended petition containing all exhausted claims he wished to challenge by way of federal habeas proceedings. Id.

Then, on October 3, 2011, Petitioner filed his amended petition. Inadvertently, the amended petition was docketed as a new action entitled Hill v. Cates, No. 11-cv-04890-TEH (PR) (N.D. Cal. filed October 3, 2011). But the document Petitioner filed on October 3, 2011 should have been filed as a court-ordered amended petition under Hill v. State of California, No. 09-cv-03147-TEH (PR) (N.D. Cal. filed July 10, 2009).

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown:

1. The action in Hill v. Cates, No. 11-cv-04890-TEH (PR) (N.D. Cal. filed October 3, 2011) is DISMISSED. No filing fee is due. The clerk is directed to terminate any pending motions as moot and close the file.

2. The Clerk is further directed to re-file the amended petition containing all exhausted claims (i.e., Doc. No. 1 in Hill v. Cates, No. 11-cv-04890-TEH (PR) (N.D. Cal. filed October 3, 2011) in the earlier-filed action Petitioner filed in this Court, Hill v. State of California, No. 09-cv-03147-TEH (PR) (N.D. Cal. filed July 10, 2009).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

THELTON E. HENDERSON

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Hill v. Cate

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Nov 15, 2011
No. C-11-4890 TEH (PR) (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2011)
Case details for

Hill v. Cate

Case Details

Full title:CHAZARUS HILL, SR., Petitioner, v. MATTHEW CATE, Secretary, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Nov 15, 2011

Citations

No. C-11-4890 TEH (PR) (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2011)