Crooks

Crooks v. Ignoramis

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaApril 8, 20203:20-cv-00407California1,211 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WILLIAM GRANT CROOKS, Case No.: 3:20-cv-0407-LAB-RBM

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST

v. AMENDED PETITION WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

JENEAN WALLACE, CEO and

OSTERTAG,

15 Respondents.

17 On March 2, 2020, Petitioner, a civil detainee proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, in which he appeared to be challenging his continued involuntary commitment to Patton State Hospital, after being found not guilty by reason of insanity in 1982. (See Pet., ECF No. 1.) On March 4, 2020, the Court dismissed the case without prejudice because Petitioner failed to satisfy the filing fee requirement, failed to state a cognizable claim and failed to name a proper respondent. (ECF No. 2.) Petitioner was instructed that to have this case reopened he had to (1) either pay the filing fee or provide adequate proof of his inability to pay and (2) file a First Amended Petition, no later than May 8,…

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.