Delmonico v. Bonta
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:21-cv-02009
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
Delmonico v. Bonta: Judge Gilliam dismissed the petition without prejudice after Delmonico missed the deadline to amend it.
Michael John Delmonico’s federal challenge to his 2018 misdemeanor conviction was dismissed without prejudice; Rob Bonta was the respondent identified as Delmonico’s current custodian.
What happened
In Delmonico v. Bonta, Michael John Delmonico challenged a 2018 misdemeanor conviction from Palo Alto Superior Court in a federal petition filed without a lawyer.
The court had previously dismissed the petition because Delmonico’s claim that his lawyer was ineffective was not adequately explained, but allowed him to file an amended petition. Delmonico missed the deadline and did not otherwise contact the court.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. dismissed the petition without prejudice for failing to pursue the case and for failing to follow the court’s earlier order. The clerk was directed to close the file.
The detailed version
- Delmonico v. Bonta · No. 4:21-cv-02009
- Haywood Gilliam
- May 19, 2021
Background
Michael John Delmonico filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a 2018 misdemeanor conviction from Palo Alto Superior Court. He represented himself.
The court’s footnote states that Rob Bonta, the California Attorney General, was substituted for the previously named respondent because Bonta was Delmonico’s current custodian.
Earlier order and missed deadline
On March 31, 2021, the court dismissed the petition with leave to amend because Delmonico’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim was insufficiently pleaded. The court warned that failing to timely file an amended petition would result in dismissal for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
The deadline passed, and Delmonico did not file an amended petition or otherwise communicate with the court.
Ruling
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. dismissed the petition without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the court’s March 31, 2021 order. The clerk was directed to close the file.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.