Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01066/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01066-8/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID J. VALENCIA, JR., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

MICHAEL MARTEL, ) 

 )

Respondent. )

)

 )

1:11-cv—01066-AWI-SKO-HC

ORDER DISREGARDING PETITIONER’S

AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS (DOC. 54)

INFORMATIONAL ORDER TO PETITIONER

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a

petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 and 303. Pending before

the Court is Petitioner’s amended petition for writ of habeas

corpus, which was lodged on November 13, 2012.

 On November 7, 2012, the Court granted Petitioner’s

unopposed motion to file a second amended petition and expressly

provided that Petitioner’s previously filed first amended

petition (doc. 29, filed June 14, 2012), as augmented by

Petitioner’s motion to amend (doc. 47), would constitute the

second amended petition. (Doc. 51, 2.) The Court’s order

1

Case 1:11-cv-01066-AWI-SKO Document 55 Filed 11/16/12 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

expressly provided that filing a separate pleading was

unnecessary. (Id.) Respondent subsequently filed notice that

Respondent intended to rely on Respondent’s previously filed

answer (doc. 53, filed November 8, 2012).

It therefore appears that the amended petition lodged by

Petitioner on November 13, 2012, was unnecessary, and thus, it is

DISREGARDED.

Petitioner is INFORMED that if in filing the disregarded

amendment, Petitioner intended to seek leave to file a petition

with additional new matter, Petitioner must seek leave of the

Court to file a third amended petition by way of a noticed

motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 15, 2012 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:11-cv-01066-AWI-SKO Document 55 Filed 11/16/12 Page 2 of 2