(HC) Hatchett v. Clark ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CECIL JEROME HATCHETT, Case No. 2:20-cv-00892-KJM-JDP (HC) 12 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO 13 v. DISMISS BE GRANTED AND THE AMENDED PETITION BE DISMISSED 14 KEN CLARK, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND WITHIN SIXTY DAYS 15 Respondent. ECF No. 22 16 17 Petitioner Cecil Jerome Hatchett, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, seeks a writ 18 of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 14. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss 19 that argues that the petition is deficient because it was not filed on a court-approved form and is 20 unintelligible.1 ECF No. 22 at 2. In his opposition, petitioner states that he attempted to file his 21 petition on a court-approved form, but his claims arrived “detached” from the form. ECF No. 25 22 at 1-2. He argues that he should be allowed to correct this problem and to submit his claims on 23 the correct form. Id. at 2. Respondent concurs. ECF No. 26. Accordingly, I RECOMMEND 24 that: 25 1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 22, be granted; 26 27 1 Respondent acknowledges that petitioner is raising a Miranda claim, but cannot discern 28 the specifics. ECF No. 22 at 2. 1 2. The amended petition, ECF No. 14, be dismissed with leave to amend within sixty 2 | days; and 3 3. The Clerk of Court be directed to send petitioner a federal habeas form. 4 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 5 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within fourteen days 6 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 7 | objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 8 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 9 | objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 10 | parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 11 appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 12 | v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 13 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 ( 1 Ow — Dated: _ April 7, 2021 q_———. 16 JEREMY D. PETERSON 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28