Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02203/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02203-0/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

16cv2203-CAB-BGS

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Joseph A. Prado,

Plaintiff,

v.

Williams,

Defendant.

Case No.: 16cv2203-CAB-BGS

Order Denying Motion to Amend [Doc. 

No. 10]

On August 26, 2016, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, submitted a 

Petitioner for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254. [Doc. No. 1.] The 

Court dismissed the action on September 2, 2016, because Petitioner had failed to satisfy 

the filing fee requirement, and because he had failed to name a proper respondent, failed 

to state a cognizable claim for relief, and failed to allege exhaustion of state court 

remedies. [Doc. No. 2.] He was given until November 8, 2016 to either pay the $5.00 

fee or submit adequate proof of his inability to pay the fee and file a First Amended 

Petition which cured the pleading deficiencies outlined in the Order of dismissal. Id.

On September 19, 2016, Petitioner submitted a motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis [Doc. No. 4], but did not file a First Amended Petition. On September 26, 2016, 

the Court granted the motion to proceed in forma pauperis. [Doc. No. 5.] However, the 

action remained dismissed because no First Amended Petition had been filed. [Id. at 2.] 

Case 3:16-cv-02203-CAB-BGS Document 11 Filed 11/21/16 Page 1 of 2
2

16cv2203-CAB-BGS

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

Petitioner was given until November 8, 2016 to file a First Amended Petition that cured 

the deficiencies outlined in this Court’s order of September 9, 2016. Id. Since then, 

Petitioner has submitted several documents that have been rejected, as they did not 

appear to be a First Amended Petition. [See Doc. Nos. 6, 7, 8.] On November 17, 2016, 

Petitioner filed a document which this Court deemed to be a motion to amend, as it 

referenced a “motion to make amends before November 8th, 2016 . . .“ [Doc. No. 10 at 1.]

Petitioner’s motion to amend is difficult to decipher, as it merely places words on 

various parts of the page, but there is no discernable narrative as to Petitioner’s claims. 

Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that in order to state a claim for 

relief in a pleading it must contain “a short and plain statement of the grounds for the 

court’s jurisdiction” and “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(1) & (2). Here, the Court finds that 

Plaintiff’s motion to amend falls shorts of complying with Rule 8. Moreover, any 

amended Petition must be complete by itself without reference to the original pleading. 

See Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 

1989) (“[A]n amended pleading supersedes the original.”); Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 

F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting that claims dismissed with leave to amend which 

are not re-alleged in an amended pleading may be “considered waived if not repled.”).

For these reasons, the motion to amend is DENIED. This case REMAINS 

DISMISSED. The Petitioner is given leave to file a First Amended Petition that is 

complete by itself without reference to the prior pleading or motion, and addresses the 

deficiencies outlined in the Court’s order of September 9, 2016, no later than January 3, 

2017.

Dated: November 21, 2016

Case 3:16-cv-02203-CAB-BGS Document 11 Filed 11/21/16 Page 2 of 2