Opinion
2:24-cv-04888-HDV (MAA)
09-27-2024
Joe Ledezma v. James Hill
Cindy Delgado
Cindy Delgado
PRESENT: THE HONORABLE MARIA A. AUDERO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Proceedings (In Chambers): Order re: Filing of Petition
On June 5, 2024, Joe Ledezma, acting pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus (“Petition”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. (Pet., ECF No. 1.) On June 7, 2024, the case was ordered transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. (ECF No. 5.) On June 11, 2024, the case was assigned to the calendar of the Honorable District Judge Hernan D. Vera and referred to Magistrate Judge Maria A. Audero for the preparation of a report and recommendation regarding the disposition of this case. (ECF No. 8.) On June 24, 2024, Petitioner paid the $5.00 filing fee. (ECF No. 9.)
The Petition presents several problems that must be addressed before this matter may proceed. First, the Petition appears on a form used by the California State Courts rather than any form approved for use in any United States District Court. (Pet. 1-4, ECF No. 1.) In addition, the Petition is directed to the Court of Appeal of the State of California for the Second Appellate District, Division One. (Id. at 1, 5.) Further, the proof of service attached to the Petition shows that service was made on the Los Angeles County Superior Court, the California Attorney General, the California Corrections Health Care Facility, the Second Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal, and the chambers address of a Senior United States District Judge of the Northern District of California sitting in Oakland, California. (Id. at 13.) Taken together, this suggests that Petitioner intended to-and did-present this Petition to the Second District Court of Appeal, an intermediate appellate court of the State of California in the County of Los Angeles, and that the mailing of a copy of the Petition to a judge in the Northern District of California was not intended to initiate a federal case requesting a writ of habeas corpus from a federal district court.
Pinpoint citations in this Order refer to the page numbers appearing in the ECF-generated header of the Petition.
If the Court is correct, then Petitioner may seek to voluntarily dismiss this federal case. In this event, Petitioner may file Form CV-09 (Notice of Dismissal Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(a) or (c)), a blank copy of which is attached to this Order.
Petitioner is advised that, should he continue with this federal case, he must cure additional problems caused by his use of the state court form of petition. Specifically, his use of the state court form means that Petitioner has not provided the information necessary to show that he has exhausted his claims in the state courts. In other words, if Petitioner has not yet presented the claims in the Petition to the California Supreme Court, this Court may not be able to entertain his Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A); O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999) (interpreting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(c)); see also Gatlin v. Madding, 189 F.3d 882, 888 (9th Cir. 1999) (applying O'Sullivan to California). In addition, the Petition lacks information necessary to determine whether the petition is timely.
To begin to address these issues, Petitioner must file, if he decides to continue with this federal case, an amended petition using the correct form. The Petition must appear on Form CV-69, the standard form for habeas corpus petitions filed by state prisoners in this Court. Pursuant to Rule 2(d) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (“Habeas Rules”) and Central District of California Local Civil Rule 83-16.1, a habeas petition filed in this district must substantially follow the standard form for state habeas cases approved and supplied by the Court. The information required by Form CV-69 is critical so that the Court can meet its duty under Rule 4 of the Habeas Rules to ascertain whether the procedural requirements for a habeas action have been met.
If Petitioner seeks to proceed with this federal case, Petitioner is ORDERED to file no later than September 9, 2024 an amended petition that incorporates a completed Form CV-69, a blank copy of which is attached to this Order.
Petitioner is cautioned that failure to respond to this Order by September 9, 2024 may result in a recommendation that the Petition be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
This Order is non-dispositive. However, if Petitioner believes this order erroneously disposes of any of his claims or precludes any relief sought, he may file objections with the district judge within twenty (20) days after the date of the Order. See Bastidas v. Chappell, 791 F.3d 1155, 1162 (9th Cir. 2015); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72.
It is so ordered.
Attachments
Form CV-09 (Notice of Dismissal Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(a) or (c))
Form CV-69 (Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody)