Stefano Rocco et al v. Orange County Superior Court
Filing
3
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 8/26/2013. Petitioner is ordered to show cause on or before August 26, 2013, why the petition should not be summarily dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 2(c) and (d) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Petitioner is free to attach any documents he wishes to the petition. If Petitioner does not timely respond to this order to show cause, the petition is subject to summary dismissal. (See Order for details.) (Attachments: # 1 State Habeas Corpus Packet) (mp)
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
SACV 13-1120-CAS (AGR)
Title
Stefano Rocco v. Orange County Superior Court
Present: The
Honorable
Date
August 5, 2013
Alicia G. Rosenberg, United States Magistrate Judge
Marine Pogosyan
n/a
n/a
Deputy Clerk
Court Reporter / Recorder
Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Petitioner:
Attorneys Present for Respondent:
None
None
Proceedings:
In Chambers: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Petitioner is ordered to show cause on or before August 26, 2013, why the petition
should not be summarily dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 2(c) and (d) of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases.
On July 26, 2013, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Except for the
caption page, Petitioner used a California form for a Petition for Writ related to a misdemeanor,
infraction, or limited civil case. The state form is not a petition for writ of habeas corpus.
Petitioner appears to be challenging either a Superior Court ruling or an Appellate Division
ruling, or both. The remainder of Petitioner’s submission here consists of exhibits. It appears
that Petitioner was convicted in 2009 of stealing a bottle of ketchup from the Chapman
University dining area. (Petition, Dkt. No. 1-1 at 9 (Orange County Register article dated May
23, 2011).)
28 U.S.C. § 2254 provides that “a district court shall entertain an application for a writ of
habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on
the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United
States.”
Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases states that the petition must “(1)
specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner; (2) state the facts supporting each
ground; (3) state the relief requested; . . . and (5) be signed under penalty of perjury by the
petitioner.” Rule 2(d) states that the “petition must substantially follow either the form
appended to these rules or a form prescribed by a local district-court rule.”
The petition does not comply with Rule 2(c) or (d). Accordingly, Petitioner is
ORDERED to submit an amended petition on or before August 26, 2013, using the Central
District’s § 2254 form. Petitioner is free to attach any documents he wishes to the petition. The
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
SACV 13-1120-CAS (AGR)
Date
Title
August 5, 2013
Stefano Rocco v. Orange County Superior Court
Clerk is directed to send Petitioner a state habeas corpus packet.
If Petitioner does not timely respond to this order to show cause, the petition is
subject to summary dismissal.
Initials of Preparer
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
mp
Page 2 of 2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
