DeJohn Lamont Miller v. Charles Pfeifer

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. 2:20-cv-01628-PSG (SK) Date March 13, 2020 Title DeJohn Lamont Miller v. Charles Pfeifer et al.

Present: The Honorable Steve Kim, U.S. Magistrate Judge Connie Chung n/a Deputy Clerk Court Smart / Recorder Attorneys Present for Petitioner: Attorneys Present for Respondent: None present None present Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Petitioner, a California state prisoner, filed a motion for stay “to file a second or [successive] petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254,” leading the Clerk’s Office to open this action, but without any accompanying § 2254 petition. (ECF 1 at 1). Without a habeas petition that presents a “case” or “controversy,” the Court not only has nothing to stay but lacks jurisdiction altogether. Calderon v. Ashmus, 523 U.S. 740, 746 (1998); see Casaburi v. Warden, 2013 WL 3367275, at *1 (C.D. Cal. July 3, 2013) (dismissing action for lack of jurisdiction where petitioner filed letter requesting extension of time to file federal habeas petition but filed no petition).

THEREFORE, Petitioner is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE on or before April 12, 2020 why the Court should not dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction. To discharge this order, Petitioner must file a completed habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 using the attached Form CV-69 on or before April 12, 2020. See L.R. 83-16.1. If Petitioner no longer wishes to proceed with this action, he may voluntarily dismiss the action without prejudice using the attached Form CV-09 and refile after he has exhausted all his claims, provided that he has enough time left under the one-year federal statute of limitations. Failure to comply with this order may result in involuntary dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute and to obey court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); L.R. 41-1.

IT IS SO ORDERED.