Eatmon v. People of the State of Cal
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:19-cv-07829
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Eatmon v. People of the State of Cal, Judge Gilliam dismissed the action because Eatmon filed neither the required fee paperwork nor a properly formatted petition.
Kendell Eatmon’s federal action was dismissed; the respondent, People of the State of Cal, received judgment in its favor. The order did not decide the merits of Eatmon’s underlying custody or resentencing issues.
What happened
Kendell Eatmon asked the federal court to pause the deadline for filing a petition challenging his custody while state-court resentencing proceedings continued. The Clerk told him to file a completed petition and either pay the filing fee or request permission to proceed without paying it.
Eatmon confirmed that he intended to file a petition later, but he did not submit the required petition, pay the filing fee, or submit the required application. The court dismissed the action for those failures and directed the Clerk to enter judgment for the respondent and close the case. The order did not decide the underlying challenge to his custody.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. issued the January 31, 2020 order. The court also explained that a person seeking a protective pause generally must first file a federal petition, and that federal courts generally may not interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings.
The detailed version
- Eatmon v. People of the State of Cal · No. 4:19-cv-07829
- Haywood Gilliam
- Jan. 31, 2020
Background
Kendell Eatmon filed a pleading titled “Requesting for a Stay in Obedience.” He said that an Alameda County Superior Court judge had held a hearing concerning whether he was eligible for resentencing under California Penal Code § 1170(d). Eatmon asked the federal court to stay, or pause, the one-year period for filing a federal habeas petition. A habeas petition is a request for federal review of the legality of a person’s custody.
The Clerk notified Eatmon that no habeas petition was pending, that his request for a stay had been opened as a new case, and that he needed to file a petition on the proper form by January 6, 2020. The Clerk also told him to pay the $5 filing fee or submit an application to proceed without paying the fee. Eatmon later stated that he intended to file a petition after state-court proceedings ended, but did not intend to file the federal petition at that time.
Court’s ruling
The court dismissed the action because Eatmon did not pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed without paying it, and did not file a petition on the proper form. The order stated that any request to reopen the case must include both the fee or the required application and a properly formatted habeas petition. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment in favor of the respondent and close the file.
The court did not decide whether Eatmon was entitled to resentencing or whether any future federal custody challenge would succeed. The opinion also stated that, to seek a protective stay while exhausting state remedies, a petitioner must first file a federal habeas petition. It further noted that the Younger abstention doctrine generally prevents federal courts from intervening in ongoing state criminal proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances.
Disposition and effect
This was a procedural dismissal based on filing requirements, not a decision on the merits of Eatmon’s underlying claims. The order did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ordered judgment for the respondent and closure of the case, while expressly describing what must accompany any request to reopen.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.