(HC) Hatchett v. Clark, No. 2:2019cv02628 - Document 15 (E.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 4/10/2020 VACATING 12 Findings and Recommendations; DENYING 13 Motion for Bail; and DISMISSING 9 Amended Petition with leave to file a second amended petition within 30 days. (Henshaw, R)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CECIL JEROME HATCHETT, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 No. 2:19-cv-2628 JAM CKD P v. ORDER KEN CLARK, 15 Respondent. 16 Petitioner, a state prisoner, is proceeding pro se with an application for a writ of habeas 17 18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On March 25, 2020, the court recommended that this action 19 be dismissed for petitioner’s failure to exhaust state court remedies. In his objections to the 20 court’s recommendation, petitioner asserts under penalty of perjury that he did exhaust state court 21 remedies and, based upon the record before the court, there is not good reason to doubt petitioner. 22 Accordingly, the court will vacate the March 25, 2020 findings and recommendations. Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the court must review all 23 24 petitions for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner has submitted an amended petition on the form 25 provided by the court, but the form is not filled out accurately. For example, petitioner does not 26 clearly identify the judgment he challenges or his claims. The brief submitted with the form is 27 mostly vague. 28 ///// 1 1 Good cause appearing, petitioner will be provided with one more attempt to submit a 2 petition for writ of habeas corpus upon which petitioner might proceed. With respect to his 3 second amended petition, petitioner must provide accurate information on the form to be provided 4 by the Clerk of the Court and petition must clearly identify his claims. Language supporting the 5 claims must be clear and concise. If petitioner fails to submit a petition that materially complies 6 with the above requirements, the court will recommend that this action be dismissed without 7 prejudice. 8 9 Finally, petitioner has filed a motion asking for bail. The motion is vague and confusing. In any case, petitioner shows no reason why he should be released from prison on bail. 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. The court’s March 25, 2020 findings and recommendations are vacated. 12 2. Petitioner’s amended petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed with leave to file 13 a second amended petition within 30 days. The contents of the second amended 14 petition must materially comply with all instructions given to petitioner in this order. 15 Failure to file a second amended petition in accordance with the terms of this order 16 will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice. 17 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send petitioner the court’s form-application for 18 19 20 writ of habeas corpus by California prisoners. 4. Petitioner’s April 6, 2020 motion for bail is denied. Dated: April 10, 2020 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 hatc2628.114(2) 27 28 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
