Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00846/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00846-11/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VINCENT ANDREW PEREZ,

Petitioner,

v.

C. CHRONES, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 06-00846 AWI DLB HC

ORDER VACATING STAY AND ABEYANCE

OF PETITION AND GRANTING PETITIONER

OPPORTUNITY TO FILE SECOND

AMENDED PETITION 

[Docs. 24, 38] 

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on July 5, 2006. On

February 7, 2007, the Court granted Petitioner’s motion for stay and abeyance pending

exhaustion of two new claims in state court. (Court Doc. 24.) On March 31, 2008, after

exhausting the new claims in the state court, Petitioner filed a first amended petition. (Court

Doc. 38.) After a review of the first amended petition, it appears that Petitioner raised only the

two new exhausted claims. Petitioner is advised that if he is seeking to proceed on the newly

exhausted claims as well as the other claims raised in the original petition, his amended petition

must be complete in and of itself and raised all of the claims. An amended complaint supercedes

the original complaint, Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v.

Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), and must be “complete in itself without reference to

the prior or superceded pleading,” Local Rule 15-220. Plaintiff is warned that “[a]ll causes of

Case 1:06-cv-00846-AWI-DLB Document 40 Filed 04/15/08 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

action alleged in an original complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint are

waived.” King, 814 F.2d at 567 (citing to London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th

Cir. 1981)); accord Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1474.

 Because it appears that Petitioner may not be aware of Local Rule 15-220, the Court will

grant him the opportunity to submit a second amended petition, if so desired. If Petitioner fails to

file a second amended petition, the Court will proceed on the claims raised in the first amended

petition. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The stay and abeyance is LIFTED;

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Petitioner may file a

second amended petition; and,

3. If a second amended petition is not filed, the action will proceed on the first

amended petition.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 14, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00846-AWI-DLB Document 40 Filed 04/15/08 Page 2 of 2