Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01996/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01996-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH THOMASON, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-1996 GEB KJM P

vs.

D.L. RUNNELS, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prison inmate proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On July 29, 2005, the court stayed the action to allow

petitioner to exhaust state remedies on additional issues he wished to add to his underlying

habeas petition.

On November 29, 2005, petitioner filed a “request for a second amended petition”

and on January 26, 2005, he filed a second amended petition. In both he asked that the stay be

lifted and the new claims added.

In the first amended petition, filed May 31, 2005, petitioner raised one claim: the

court abused its discretion in refusing to dismiss one of his “strikes.” The second petition

contains the following grounds: (1) judicial bias as demonstrated by a number of rulings; 

(2) prosecutorial misconduct in meeting discovery obligations; and (3) ineffective assistance of

Case 2:04-cv-01996-GEB -KJM Document 15 Filed 05/17/06 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

2

appellate counsel in failing to raise these grounds on direct appeal. Petitioner does not include

his claim of sentencing error in this second amended petition, but rather asks the court to read the

first and second amended petitions together. 

Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended petition be complete in itself without

reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a general rule, an amended petition

supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 

1. The stay entered on July 29, 2005 is hereby lifted; 

2. The second amended petition is dismissed and petitioner is given thirty days

from the date of this order in which to file a third amended petition, containing all the claims he

wishes the court to consider; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send petitioner a new habeas corpus form. 

DATED: May 16, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

thom1996.amd

Case 2:04-cv-01996-GEB -KJM Document 15 Filed 05/17/06 Page 2 of 2