1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MICHAEL DEWAYNE HAYNES,
Petitioner,
No. CIV S-06-2767 LKK DAD P
vs.
THOMAS L. CAREY, Warden, et al.,
Respondents.
ORDER
/
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and has paid the filing fee.
Upon the filing of a habeas petition, the district court must examine the pleading
to determine whether the respondents should be ordered to file an answer, a motion, or some
other response. See Rule 4, Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases.
Under the Federal Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts, “[a] petitioner who seeks relief from judgments of more than one state court must file a
separate petition covering the judgment or judgments of each court.” Rule 2(e), Fed. R.
Governing § 2254 Cases. In the petition filed in this case, petitioner seeks relief both from a
judgment of conviction entered by the San Joaquin County Superior Court on May 4, 2001, and a
judgment of conviction entered by the Placer County Superior Court on July 29, 2002. Although
Case 2:06-cv-02767-LKK-DAD Document 3 Filed 12/14/2006 Page 1 of 2
(HC) Haynes v. Carey
Doc. 3
Dockets.Justia.com
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2
the California Court of Appeal appears to have consolidated two state habeas petitions filed by
petitioner after the San Joaquin County Superior Court denied habeas relief on April 28, 2004,
and the Placer County Superior Court denied habeas relief on April 28, 2005, that consolidation
does not alter the fact that petitioner is attacking the judgments of more than one state court.
Petitioner must seek federal relief from his two convictions in separate petitions
filed in separate cases. The petition in this case will be dismissed with leave to file an amended
petition attac