Warden

Nery Calderon v. Warden

Good Law
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaDecember 18, 20192:19-cv-10219California1,826 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 NERY CALDERON, Case No. 2:19-10219-SVW (GJS) 12 Petitioner

ORDER: DISMISSING ACTION;

13 v. AND DENYING A CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY

14 WARDEN, 15 Respondent. 16

17 On December 2, 2019, the Clerk’s Office received an eight-line unsigned 18 letter from Nery Calderon (“Petitioner”), which attached four pages of documents 19 that had been filed repeatedly in Petitioner’s prior habeas action in this District. The 20 Clerk’s Office opted to treat the letter and attached pages as a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 21 habeas petition [Dkt. 1, “Petition”], even though it is unsigned, does not contain any 22 of the information required to set forth in a Section 2254 habeas petition (see Rule 2 23 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts), 24 and does not plead any habeas claim for relief. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 25 Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts provides that a petition for a 26 writ of habeas corpus “must” be summarily dismissed “[i]f it plainly…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.