Ingram v. King County Superior Court

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: April 27, 2020
• Docket: 2:19-cv-01981
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 ROBERT SCOTT INGRAM,

10 Petitioner, CASE NO. C19-1981-TSZ-MAT

11 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR A 12 DONALD HOLBROOK, MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT

13 Respondents.

15 Petitioner proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus 16 matter. In response to the Court’s order directing service of the amended petition, respondent filed 17 a Motion for More Definite Statement. (Dkt. 13.) Now, having considered respondent’s motion, 18 the Court finds as follows: 19 (1) Respondent’s Motion for a More Definite Statement (Dkt. 13) is GRANTED. The 20 Court agrees the amended petition does not sufficiently identify specific grounds for relief, 21 allowing for fair notice to respondent of the claims to address in an answer. Plaintiff is, 22 accordingly, directed to submit a second amended petition. Such petition must contain a concise 23 statement of all of the grounds for relief currently pursued by petitioner in this habeas corpus

ORDER 1 proceeding.1 Petitioner shall file and serve a second amended petition on or before May 26, 2020. 2 Respondent shall file and serve an answer within forty-five (45) days after service of the second 3 amended petition.

4 (2) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order and of the Court’s standard § 5 2254 forms to petitioner. The Clerk is further directed to send a copy of this Order to the Honorable 6 Thomas S. Zilly. 7 DATED this 27th day of April, 2020. 8 A 9 Mary Alice Theiler 10 United States Magistrate Judge

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

21 1 Petitioner is again advised that the Court cannot grant a writ of habeas corpus unless a petitioner demonstrates that he is in custody in violation of federal law and that the highest state court decision 22 rejecting his grounds was either “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) and (d)(1). Petitioner must prove that his custody violates the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. 28 23 U.S.C. § 2254(a); see also McKenzie v. McCormick, 27 F.3d 1415, 1418-19 (9th Cir. 1994).

ORDER