Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00494/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00494-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JOHNNY CLIFFORD JACKSON, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

GARY SWARTHOUT, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:10-cv-494-GEB-EFB P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel on a petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has filed a motion to amend his petition. ECF No. 40. 

Respondent opposes the motion. ECF No. 41. For the reasons that follow, it is recommended 

that the motion be denied. 

 Petitioner’s original petition concerned a January 2008 disciplinary action. ECF No. 1. 

That petition was dismissed with leave to amend. ECF Nos. 26, 27. On October 6, 2012, 

petitioner filed a first amended petition that provided additional details of the January 2008 

disciplinary action. ECF No. 28. Petitioner subsequently filed a “Notice of Motion and Motion 

to Addendum.” ECF No. 33. In that filing, petitioner claimed that he was granted two parole 

dates, that the Board of Prison Terms rescinded only one of those parole dates at a rescission 

hearing in 1989, and that he therefore should have been released from prison more than twenty 

years ago. Id. at 1-2. 

Case 2:10-cv-00494-GEB-EFB Document 43 Filed 01/13/15 Page 1 of 3
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

 On August 29, 2013, the court denied respondent’s motion to dismiss petitioner’s first 

amended petition. ECF No. 37 (adopting in full the August 7, 2013 Findings and 

Recommendations, ECF No. 35). The court addressed petitioner’s “Notice of Motion and Motion 

to Addendum” and his argument regarding the 1989 rescission hearing in the Findings and 

Recommendations. See ECF No. 35 at 6, n.3. Specifically, the Findings and Recommendations 

explained: 

Petitioner is essentially alleging a new claim for relief that is 

unrelated to his 2008 disciplinary conviction. Petitioner, however, 

has not moved to amend his petition to allege such a claim. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 (a). Furthermore, construing the September 27, 

2012 pleading as a motion to amend would not assist petitioner, as 

the pleading does not comply with the court’s local rules. See E.D. 

Cal. Local Rule 220. 

Petitioner potentially faces other problems in his attempt to assert 

this new claim. First, there is no indication that petitioner 

exhausted this claim by presenting it to the California Supreme 

Court. Second, petitioner was likely aware of the facts surrounding 

such a claim at the time of the 1989 rescission hearing, and 

therefore the statute of limitations would likely preclude petitioner 

from now assertion the claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). 

Since the claim petitioner attempts to allege in his September 27, 

2012 pleading is not properly before the court and is unrelated to 

his challenge to the 2008 disciplinary conviction, the undersigned 

declines to address it. Petitioner is notified that he may still attempt 

to assert such a claim by filing a separate petition for writ of 

habeas corpus. However, he is admonished that he must exhaust 

the claim before seeking federal relief, and even then the claim 

may still be barred by statute of limitations. 

Id. 

 In the pending motion to amend, petitioner argues that he has exhausted his claim 

regarding the 1989 rescission hearing. ECF No. 40 at 1. Petitioner’s motion includes a copy of a 

habeas corpus petition that he apparently filed with the California Supreme Court on January 16, 

2010. Id. at Exhibit A. 

 However, as explained in the August 7, 2013 findings and recommendations, petitioner’s 

claim regarding the 1989 rescission hearing is unrelated to the claim in his first amended petition. 

Case 2:10-cv-00494-GEB-EFB Document 43 Filed 01/13/15 Page 2 of 3
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 

3

Nearly twenty years separates the factual bases of the two claims. Again, petitioner is notified if 

he intends to pursue a claim based on that rescission hearing, he must do in a separate petition for 

writ of habeas corpus. 

 For the reasons stated above, it is recommended that petitioner’s motion to amend (ECF 

No. 40) be denied. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 

shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. Failure to file 

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 

Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 

1991). 

DATED: January 12, 2015. 

Case 2:10-cv-00494-GEB-EFB Document 43 Filed 01/13/15 Page 3 of 3