Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01350/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01350-3/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ISAIAH THOMPSON-BONILLA,

Petitioner,

v.

W. A. DUNCAN, warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 05-1350 SI (pr)

ORDER 

Petitioner filed this action on April 4, 2005 and within a few weeks requested a stay of

proceedings so he could exhaust state court remedies as to some new claims he had discovered.

This action was stayed and administratively closed in June 2005. 

On May 4, 2006, he filed a document entitled “first leave to amend habeas corpus;

pending stay and abeyance action,” which the court construed as a motion to lift the stay and file

an amended petition that the court had received on May 4, 2006. The court granted the motion

(docket # 9) and permitted the filing of the amended petition (docket # 11). In its order to show

cause, the court identified two claims in the amended petition – i.e., an equal protection claim

regarding the application of the Three Strikes Law and a due process claim based on a breach

of a 1990 or 1992 plea agreement. Respondent filed his answer on October 4, 2006 addressing

those two claims. Petitioner filed his traverse on December 26, 2006 addressing those two

claims.

Meanwhile, as though proceeding on a separate track, petitioner submitted on November

16, 2006 an unsigned document entitled “Notice And ‘Amended’ Petition Following Lifting Of

Stay.” The proof of service indicates that the Notice was sent to the court but not to

Case 3:05-cv-01350-SI Document 26 Filed 05/15/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

respondent’s counsel. Petitioner stated in the Notice that he moved “to amend his habeas

petition to include the two (2) additional claims recently exhausted in state court proceedings.”

Notice, p. 2. The Notice had seven claims in it, including the two claims that were in the

amended petition (docket # 11) filed six months earlier. Petitioner did not explain why he

waited six months to submit a document that raised all his claims or explain why he had filed

an amended petition that raised only two claims. It may be that petitioner intended the Notice

received by the court on November 16, 2006 to be a second amended petition that asserted all

seven of his claims, although the court is not certain of that interpretation. The confusion needs

to be resolved so that this court and any reviewing court know how many claims need to be

addressed. Accordingly,

1. Petitioner must file and serve on respondent’s counsel any motion to amend and

proposed second amended petition no later than June 29, 2007. If petitioner wants the “Notice

And ‘Amended’ Petition Following Lifting Of Stay,”to be considered as a second amended

petition, he must file and serve a signed copy of it with a new cover page that specifically

identifies it as a “Second Amended Petition.” He also must file and serve with it a motion to

amend that explains why he did not file it until six months after the stay was lifted. If petitioner

does not file a motion to amend by the June 29, 2007 deadline, the court will interpret that to be

an abandonment of all the claims mentioned in the Notice that were not included in the amended

petition (docket # 11). 

2. Respondent must file and serve any opposition to a motion to amend no later than

August 3, 2007. 

The parties do not need to brief the merits of any of the claims at this point, as the court

is only determining whether to permit the filing of a second amended petition. If a second

amended petition is permitted, the court will set a briefing schedule for an amended answer and

amended traverse to address the claims. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 15, 2007 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01350-SI Document 26 Filed 05/15/07 Page 2 of 2