Dunn v. Covello
- Robert Illman
- 5:21-cv-09036
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Dunn v. Covello, Judge Illman dismissed Dunn’s amended federal imprisonment petition but allowed another amendment because the claims were unclear.
Keylen M. Dunn, whose amended federal habeas petition was dismissed but who was given 28 days to file a properly organized second amended petition.
What happened
Dunn v. Covello concerns a petition by California prisoner Keylen M. Dunn, who was representing himself and sought federal review of his imprisonment. The court had already dismissed his original petition with permission to amend.
Dunn’s amended petition listed three claims but referred to fifteen handwritten pages from an earlier filing, leaving the nature of the claims unclear. The court instructed him to list each claim separately and warned that he could proceed only with claims first presented to the California Supreme Court.
Judge Robert M. Illman dismissed the amended petition with leave to amend. Dunn may file a second amended petition within 28 days, but failure to do so will result in dismissal of the claims.
The detailed version
- Dunn v. Covello · No. 5:21-cv-09036
- Robert Illman
- Aug. 17, 2022
Background
Keylen M. Dunn, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a federal petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court dismissed the original petition with leave to amend, and Dunn filed an amended petition.
Reason for Dismissal
The court previously directed Dunn to identify each claim in a numbered list on one page, followed by any additional discussion. The amended petition listed three claims but referred the court to fifteen handwritten pages from a prior filing. The court stated that the nature of each claim was not clear from that filing.
Exhaustion Requirement
The court again informed Dunn that he could proceed only on claims exhausted by presenting them to the California Supreme Court. Exhaustion is the requirement that a state prisoner first present a claim to the state’s highest court before seeking federal habeas review of that claim.
Disposition
Judge Robert M. Illman ordered that the amended petition be dismissed with leave to amend. Dunn was allowed to file a second amended petition within 28 days after service of the order. It had to use the case caption and civil case number from the order and include the words “SECOND AMENDED PETITION” on its first page. The order stated that failure to amend within the deadline would result in dismissal of the claims. It also required Dunn to keep the court informed of address changes and comply with court orders; failure to do so could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute 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.