Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Mask v. Paramo, 2:15-cv-2168 MCE CKD P. (2016)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20160420d98 Visitors: 10
Filed: Apr. 19, 2016
Latest Update: Apr. 19, 2016
Summary: ORDER CAROLYN K. DELANEY , Magistrate Judge . On March 1, 2016, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations addressing petitioner's two motions to stay this federal habeas action and respondent's motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 15.) Review by the district court is pending. Since the findings and recommendations issued, petitioner has filed four motions and a proposed second amended petition. (ECF Nos. 16, 20, 23, 24 & 21.) All such filings are premature, as no further action is warrant
More

ORDER

On March 1, 2016, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations addressing petitioner's two motions to stay this federal habeas action and respondent's motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 15.) Review by the district court is pending.

Since the findings and recommendations issued, petitioner has filed four motions and a proposed second amended petition. (ECF Nos. 16, 20, 23, 24 & 21.) All such filings are premature, as no further action is warranted in this case until the findings and recommendations are either adopted or rejected by the district court. Thus all petitioner's motions will be dismissed without prejudice to renewal, if appropriate, at a later stage of this action.

Petitioner's filing of frivolous motions is a burden on this court and impedes the proper prosecution of this action.1 Petitioner's future filings shall be limited as set forth below, and any filings disallowed by the limiting order will be disregarded.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Petitioner's motions at ECF Nos. 16, 20, 23, and 24 are denied as premature without prejudice to renewal; and

2. Petitioner may only file the following documents:

a. Any amended petition as directed by the court; b. One opposition to any motion filed by respondent (and clearly titled as such); c. Only one non-dispositive motion pending at any time. Petitioner is limited to one memorandum of points and authorities in support of the motion and one reply to any opposition; and d. One set of objections to any future findings and recommendations.

Failure to comply with this order shall result in improperly filed documents being stricken from the record.

FootNotes


1. "Respondent has reviewed Petitioner's [three] March 28th filings and has found that these documents contain nothing substantively new or different from Petitioner's previous filing on March 4, 2016." (ECF No. 26 at 3.)
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