Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01109/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01109-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CESAR ERNESTO RIVAS,

Petitioner,

v.

MICHAEL L. BENOV, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01109-SAB-HC

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND 

(ECF No. 15)

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

I.

DISCUSSION

On July 16, 2014, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court. (ECF 

No. 1). The petition challenges Petitioner’s disciplinary conviction because an individual not 

employed by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) disallowed good conduct time as a result of an 

incident report. On October 29, 2014, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition as moot. 

(ECF No. 14). On December 3, 2014, Petitioner filed his opposition to Respondent’s motion to 

dismiss. (ECF No. 16).

On October 28, 2014, Respondent alerted the Court to the fact that the two petitions 

challenge the same disciplinary hearing. (ECF No. 13). Respondent moved to consolidate the 

Case 1:14-cv-01109-SAB Document 17 Filed 12/31/14 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

two cases. In Case No. 1:14-cv-01118-JLT-HC, on November 5, 2014, Magistrate Judge 

Jennifer L. Thurston ordered that the Court construe the petition in Case No. 1:14-cv-01118-

JLT-HC as a motion to amend the petition in Case No. 1:14-cv-01109-SAB. Magistrate Judge 

Thurston noted that in Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886, 888-890 (9th Cir. 2008), the Ninth Circuit 

held that a district court should construe a second or successive petition filed while an earlier 

petition is still pending in the district court as a motion to amend the earlier petition. 

Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Thurston ordered that the petition in Case No. 1:14-cv-01118-

JLT-HC be filed in this case as a motion to amend the petition.

The Court will not issue a new briefing schedule for the amended petition, because both

parties have submitted briefs on the original petition. The amended petition is nearly identical to 

the original petition in this case, and does not raise any new claims. Therefore, there is no need 

for the parties to submit new or additional briefing on the amended petition.

II.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to amend the petition, filed in 

this case on July 17, 2014, is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 30, 2014 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01109-SAB Document 17 Filed 12/31/14 Page 2 of 2