Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06486/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06486-0/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

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

EDWARD GULBRANDSON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

YARBOROUGH, Warden, )

C. HARRISON, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:04-cv-06486-AWI-TAG HC

ORDER TO AMEND PETITION (Doc. 8)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION

TO DISMISS (Doc. 9)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

SEND PETITIONER A BLANK FORM

PETITION 

Petitioner is a prisoner proceeding with a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254. On November 11, 2004, Petitioner filed his original petition. (Doc. 1). On

February 24, 2005, the Court ordered Petitioner to file an amended petition that, inter alia, clearly

stated the federal law basis for each claim, contained details that would enable the Court to

determine if Petitioner had exhausted the claims in state court and was not in violation of the

one-year statute of limitations imposed by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). (Doc. 6). On March 16,

2005, Petitioner filed his amended petition. (Doc. 8). 

On May 4, 2005, Petitioner filed a document entitled “Amendment to Writ on Habeas

Corpus Notice of Motion to Enter Plea of Former Jeopardy and Acquittal and to Dismiss Charges

///

Case 1:04-cv-06486-AWI-JMD Document 10 Filed 05/06/05 Page 1 of 4
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

(Cal. P.C. §§ 1017; 1023, 1041 and 1385” (the “motion to dismiss”) (Doc. 9, p. 1). The motion

to dismiss does not seek to dismiss petitioner’s habeas petition. Instead, the motion contains a

detailed legal argument relating primarily to purported violations of the double jeopardy

provision of the U.S. Constitution as they relate to Petitioner’s state court sentence, including 

findings that he suffered prior felony convictions. The Court construes this document as a motion

to amend the amended petition to include an additional claim. 

Petitioner’s filing of May 4, 2005, has confused the amended petition already on file in

this case. The Court is now unclear as to the precise claims being raised by Petitioner because

the May 4, 2004 motion appears to contain additional facts and legal grounds for relief. Thus,

there are now two documents before the Court raising separate and distinct grounds for habeas

relief. If Petitioner wishes to raise additional grounds, he must file an amended petition that

contains all of the grounds and all of the facts and arguments in support thereof. The Court will

not address Petitioner’s habeas claims piecemeal, nor will the Court attempt to fit together

both documents into one legal filing. In light of the foregoing, Petitioner’s motion to dismiss

filed May 4, 2005 (Doc.9) must be denied, and Petitioner must file an amended petition

containing ALL of the claims he wishes the Court to address. 

Moreover, the Court notes that it does not appear that the “new” claim of double jeopardy

has been fully exhausted in state court by presenting that issue to the California Supreme Court. 

As the Court explained to Petitioner in the previous order to amend, a petitioner who is in state

custody and wishes to collaterally challenge his conviction by a petition for writ of habeas corpus

must exhaust state judicial remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). A petitioner can satisfy the

exhaustion requirement by providing the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to

consider each claim before presenting it to the federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270,

276, 92 S.Ct. 509, 512 (1971); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 829 (9th Cir. 1996). A federal

court will find that the highest state court was given a full and fair opportunity to hear a claim if

the petitioner has presented the highest state court with the claim's factual and legal basis.

Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365, 115 S.Ct. 887, 888 (1995) (legal basis); Kenney v.

Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 112 S.Ct. 1715, 1719 (1992) (factual basis). Additionally, the

Case 1:04-cv-06486-AWI-JMD Document 10 Filed 05/06/05 Page 2 of 4
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

petitioner must have specifically told the state court that he was raising a federal constitutional

claim. Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-66, 115 S.Ct. at 888; Keating v. Hood, 133 F.3d 1240, 1241 (9th

Cir.1998).

 No mention is made of the “new” double jeopardy claim in the pending amended petition

and no information regarding any attempt by Petitioner to exhaust this claim in state court is

contained in the motion to dismiss filed May 4, 2005. Accordingly, it does not appear to the

Court that, even were the double jeopardy claim to be included in an amended petition, that it

would survive a challenge based on exhaustion. Of course, Petitioner may have exhausted this

claim and simply failed to advise the Court of that fact. If so, Petitioner should explain his

efforts to exhaust the claim in his amended petition. 

Based on the foregoing, Petitioner must file an amended petition for writ of habeas

corpus. Petitioner is advised that the amended petition must clearly set forth each ground for

relief and contain a brief statement of facts supporting each claim. The amended petition must be

clearly and boldly titled “AMENDED PETITION”, and contain the appropriate case number, and

be an original signed under penalty of perjury. Petitioner is also advised that every pleading to

which an amendment is permitted must be retyped or rewritten and filed so that it is complete in

itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading. Local Rule 15-220. Should Petition

include in the amended petition the double jeopardy claim raised in his motion to dismiss,

Petitioner is advised that he must allege facts in his amended petition sufficient to satisfy the

Court that this new claim has been fully exhausted in state court.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s motion to dismiss filed May 4, 2005 (Doc. 9) is DENIED;

2. Petitioner is granted thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order to file an

amended petition containing all of his claims and all of the supporting facts and arguments; and

3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Petitioner a blank form petition for state

prisoners filing pursuant to § 2254.

///

///

Case 1:04-cv-06486-AWI-JMD Document 10 Filed 05/06/05 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Petitioner is forewarned that his failure to comply with this order may result in a

recommendation that the petition be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 11-110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 6, 2005 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06486-AWI-JMD Document 10 Filed 05/06/05 Page 4 of 4