Joshua Meadors v. The People of the State of California
This text of Joshua Meadors v. The People of the State of California (Joshua Meadors v. The People of the State of California) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No. CV 25-4366-KK-MBKx Date: May 22, 2025 Title:
Present: The Honorable KENLY KIYA KATO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Noe Ponce Not Reported Deputy Clerk Court Reporter
Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s): None Present None Present
Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Why Petition Should Not Be Dismissed as Duplicative
On January 22, 2025, petitioner Joshua Meadors (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus against respondents The People of the State of California, Zahra Bazmjow, State Bar of California, Givonn Bartoletti, and Kathryn Oiszewski. See Joshua Meadors v. The People of the State of California, 25-CV-00592-KK-MBK. Plaintiff challenges his convictions for assault in case numbers 24CMCF01793 and TA14809901 in the Los Angeles Superior Court and seeks release from custody.
On May 12, 2025, Petitioner filed the instant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus against respondents The People of the State of California, Judge Debra A Cole, Zahra Bazmjow, Catherine Gronof, Matthew Kaestner, and Katherine Olszewski.1 ECF Docket No. 1. While styled as a Section 1983 civil rights complaint, Plaintiff, once again, challenges his convictions for assault in case numbers 24CMCF01793 and TA14809901 in the Los Angeles Superior Court and seeks release from custody. Id. Therefore, the Court construes the instant action as a habeas petition. See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 1995) (“In cases where a prisoner’s section 1983 complaint evinced a clear intention to state a habeas claim, we have said that the district court should treat the complaint as a habeas petition.”).
1 The Court notes the only proper respondent is the “warden who has physical custody of [Petitioner.]” Oster v. United States, 763 F. Supp. 3d 935, 938 n.1 (C.D. Cal. 2025) (citing Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 435 (2004)). Accordingly, the Court, on its own motion, orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order why this action should not be dismissed as duplicative. Plaintiff is expressly warned that failure to timely file a response to this Order will result in this action being dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Joshua Meadors v. The People of the State of California, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joshua-meadors-v-the-people-of-the-state-of-california-cacd-2025.