Thomas v. Pollard

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: July 11, 2022
• Docket: 3:22-cv-00409
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 | a 11 an |

5 6 7 | 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 |} KEITH THOMAS, Case No.: 3:22-cv-0409-BAS-MSB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 || Vv. || MARCUS POLLARD, Warden, PROC EN IN FORM. Defendant. PAUPERIS (ECF No. 3), AND 2. DISMISSING PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE □

On March 25, 2022, Petitioner Keith Thomas (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for writ || of habeas corpus (the “Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Pet., ECF No. 1.) On || March 29, 2022, the Court dismissed the Petition without prejudice because Petitioner had || failed to satisfy the filing fee requirement. (Order, ECF No. 2.) In its Order, the Court |/notified Petitioner that to have his case reopened, he must either pay the filing fee or ||provide adequate proof of his inability to pay, no later than May 27, 2022. (dd. at 1.) || Petitioner filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) on May 25, 2022. (Mot., || ECF No. 3.) | //

1 || facts because he “do[es] not have a copy of that petition.” (/d. at 7.) The Court declines 2 look to pleadings in another case to make sense of Petitioner’s claims. While courts 3 should liberally interpret pro se pleadings with leniency and understanding, this should not 4 on the reviewing court the entire onus of ferreting out grounds for relief and || Supporting facts. Cf Burkey v. Deeds, 824 F. Supp. 190, 193 (D. Nev. 1993). Because the 6 || Petition contains mere conclusory allegations without any specific facts in support of relief, 7 Court finds that it must be dismissed. 8 CONCLUSION 9 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed IFP 10 No. 3) and DISMISSES this action without prejudice. To have this case reopened, 11 {|Petitioner must, no later than August 15, 2022, file a First Amended Petition that cures 12 pleading deficiencies set forth above. Should Petitioner decide to file an amended 13 petition, he is advised to clearly and succinctly state all grounds for relief and supporting 14 || facts using the blank First Amended Petition form sent to Petitioner with this order. IT IS SO ORDERED.

|| DATED: July 11, 2022 fj a. □□ ~ Ho. uu iia Bashant United States District Judge

February 17, 2022. (See ECF No. 36.) From the allegations contained in the current petition, it is || impossible to discern whether Petitioner is attempting to challenge the same conviction and sentence as in the prior case. The Court notes that challenges to the “the same custody imposed by the same judgment of a state court” as a prior petition are generally prohibited unless Petitioner has been granted leave to file || 4 successive petition by the United States Court of Appeals. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); see also Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 153 (2007).