From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Robben v. Allison

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Aug 4, 2021
2:21-CV-0721-WBS-DMC-P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2021)

Opinion

2:21-CV-0721-WBS-DMC-P

08-04-2021

TODD CHRISTIAN ROBBEN, Petitioner, v. KATHLEEN ALLISON, Respondent.


ORDER

DENNIS M. COTA, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

Petitioner, a parolee proceeding pro se, has initiated this action with a document filed on April 20, 2021. See ECF No. 1. Petitioner states that the filing is intended as a “placeholder” petition in order to preserve his filing date. See id. Petitioner's filing, however, does not comply with Rule 2(c) of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. That rule requires, among other things, that the petition specify all grounds for relief and state all facts supporting each ground. Petitioner's “placeholder” filing fails to do so. Petitioner will be required to file a petition which satisfies Rule 2(c) and is cautioned that failure to do so may result in dismissal of the action. See E. Dist. Cal. Local Rule 110.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner's “placeholder” filing, ECF No. 1, is dismissed with leave to amend;
2. Petitioner shall file a petition on the form employed by this Court within 30 days of the date of this order; and
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send Petitioner the Court's form habeas corpus application.


Summaries of

Robben v. Allison

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Aug 4, 2021
2:21-CV-0721-WBS-DMC-P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2021)
Case details for

Robben v. Allison

Case Details

Full title:TODD CHRISTIAN ROBBEN, Petitioner, v. KATHLEEN ALLISON, Respondent.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Aug 4, 2021

Citations

2:21-CV-0721-WBS-DMC-P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2021)