Jones v. United States
- William Orrick
- 3:20-cv-08710
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Jones v. United States, Judge Tam H. Orrick reopened the case but dismissed the petition with leave to amend because it was unclear and not on the required form.
Brett “EEON” Jones, whose action was reopened but whose petition was dismissed with leave to amend. The order also required Jones to submit a properly formatted amended petition addressing challenges to his conviction or sentence.
What happened
Brett “EEON” Jones filed an affidavit, but did not follow notices requiring him to submit a petition on the court’s form and an application to proceed without paying fees. The action was then dismissed.
Jones later filed a petition, a fee-waiver application, and a request that the court reconsider the dismissal. The court treated that request as a motion to reopen, granted it, reopened the action, and canceled the earlier judgment and dismissal order.
In Jones v. United States, Judge Tam H. Orrick dismissed the handwritten petition because it was difficult to understand and was not on the court’s form. The court allowed Jones to file an amended petition by July 18, 2022, stating grounds challenging his conviction or sentence; failure to comply could lead to dismissal.
The detailed version
- Jones v. United States · No. 3:20-cv-08710
- William Orrick
- June 3, 2022
Background
The Clerk sent Jones notices directing him to file a petition on the court’s form and an application to proceed without paying the filing fee. Jones did not comply, so the action was dismissed. Jones later filed a petition, an application to proceed without paying the fee, and a motion for reconsideration. The court construed the reconsideration motion as a motion to reopen.
Rulings
The court granted the motion to reopen and reopened the action. It directed the Clerk to modify the docket and vacated the earlier judgment and order of dismissal.
The court then dismissed the petition with leave to file an amended petition on the court’s form. The court said the handwritten petition was difficult to follow and did not appear on the required form. It instructed Jones to identify grounds for relief challenging the validity of his conviction and/or the length of his sentence.
Required next steps
The amended petition was due by July 18, 2022. It had to use the caption and civil case number in the order and include all claims Jones wished to present because it would completely replace the prior petitions. Jones could not incorporate the earlier petition by reference. The order warned that failure to file a proper amended petition could result in dismissal without further notice. It also stated that failing to comply with court orders could result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.