(HC) Thompson v. Spearman ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KANE MICHAEL THOMPSON, No. 2:19-cv-2328 KJM DB P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 M.E. SPEARMAN, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed an 18 application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1). The matter 19 was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local 20 Rule 302. 21 Before this court is respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition. (ECF No. 9). For the 22 reasons stated herein, the court will deny the motion without prejudice, and it will direct 23 petitioner to file a first amended petition. 24 I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY 25 On December 6, 2019, respondent was ordered to file a response to the instant petition 26 within sixty days. (ECF No. 5). On January 31, 2020, respondent filed the instant motion to 27 dismiss. (ECF No. 9). In support of the motion, respondent ultimately asserts that the manner in 28 which petitioner has filled out the petition form makes it unclear precisely which claims petitioner 1 wishes to raise on federal habeas appeal. (See id. at 1). As a result, respondent contends, the 2 petition should be summarily dismissed for failure to state a claim, or in the alternative, the court 3 should identify petitioner’s federal claims for respondent. (See id. at 2). 4 II. DISCUSSION 5 This court is obligated to construe a pro se litigant’s pleadings liberally. See Estelle v. 6 Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (stating pro se documents are to be liberally construed). A pro 7 se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal 8 pleadings drafted by lawyers and can only be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it appears 9 beyond doubt that he can prove no set of facts in support of his claims which would entitle him to 10 relief. See id. at 106 (internal quotation marks omitted) (citations omitted). 11 To this end, when reviewing petitioner’s pleading, the court inferred that petitioner’s four 12 claims that he made on direct appeal, were the same claims he intended to raise in this action. 13 The claims attached to the petition form clearly state grounds for relief, and they provide 14 supporting facts for those grounds. (See generally ECF No. 1 at 5-36). 15 Nevertheless, to the extent that respondent asserts that he is unable to determine which 16 claims the federal petition raises, the court takes his concerns at face value. As a result, it will 17 direct petitioner to file an amended petition which more clearly identifies the claims he intends to 18 raise in this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) (permitting leave to amend when justice so 19 requires). 20 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 21 1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss, filed January 31, 2020 (ECF No. 9), is DENIED 22 without prejudice; 23 2. Within thirty days of the date of this order, petitioner shall file a first amended 24 complaint which clearly identifies which claims he intended to raise in this action; 25 3. Within thirty days of the date of service of petitioner’s first amended complaint, 26 respondent shall file a response to the pleading, and 27 //// 28 //// 1 4. The Clerk of Court shall send petitioner a copy of this court’s Petition for a Writ of 2 | Habeas Corpus By A Person in State Custody. 3 | Dated: March 2, 2020 4 5 6 ‘BORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 | piB13 DB/ORDERS/ORDERS.PRISONER.HABEAS/thom?2328.hab.mtd.den 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28