Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

WARDLAW v. HARRISON, 2:04-cv-02172-AK. (2012)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20120801930 Visitors: 5
Filed: Jul. 30, 2012
Latest Update: Jul. 30, 2012
Summary: ORDER ALEX KOZINSKI, Chief Circuit Judge. Wardlaw's habeas petition is dismissed. 28 U.S.C. 2254 r. 4. His "[c]onclusory allegations which are not supported by a statement of specific facts do not warrant habeas relief." James v. Borg , 24 F.3d 20 , 26 (9th Cir. 1994). The dismissal is with prejudice because Wardlaw has had ample opportunity to mend the deficiencies in his petition. Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA , 317 F.3d 1097 , 1108 (9th Cir. 2003). He twice attempted to submit ame
More

ORDER

ALEX KOZINSKI, Chief Circuit Judge.

Wardlaw's habeas petition is dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 r. 4. His "[c]onclusory allegations which are not supported by a statement of specific facts do not warrant habeas relief." James v. Borg, 24 F.3d 20, 26 (9th Cir. 1994).

The dismissal is with prejudice because Wardlaw has had ample opportunity to mend the deficiencies in his petition. Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097, 1108 (9th Cir. 2003). He twice attempted to submit amended petitions that did not comply with local rules. The court then gave Wardlaw an opportunity to submit a compliant amended petition by April 17, 2012, but he failed to do so.

Because Wardlaw has not made a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003).

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer