Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00195/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00195-4/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

No. C 10-0195 RS (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

 *E-Filed 10/23/15*

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

EDWARD SMITH,

Petitioner,

v.

M.D. MCDONALD, 

Respondent. /

No. C 10-0195 RS (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner has filed an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus. This petition is

DISMISSED with leave to file an amended petition on or before December 1, 2015. 

BACKGROUND

According to the original petition, in 2006 an Alameda County Superior Court jury

convicted petitioner of second degree murder and the possession of a firearm by a felon. He

was sentenced to 60 years to life in state prison. Petitioner sought, and was denied, relief on

direct state review. 

In 2010, petitioner filed his first federal habeas petition. The Court issued an order to

show cause to respondent, who filed a motion to dismiss the habeas action on grounds that

Case 3:10-cv-00195-RS Document 25 Filed 10/23/15 Page 1 of 3
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 Petitioner will not be allowed a second opportunity to exhaust these or any other claims.

No. C 10-0195 RS (PR)

2 ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

petitioner failed to exhaust some of his claims. The motion was granted and the Court stayed

the action so that petitioner could exhaust. When petitioner later filed an amended petition

(Docket No. 18), the Court dissolved the stay and issued a second order to show cause to

respondent, who now moves to dismiss some claims as unexhausted. (Docket No. 20.) 

DISCUSSION

The amended petition raises some concerns. It omits many claims that were in the

original petition. Whereas the original petition contained nine well-articulated claims, the

amended one contains roughly four claims, some of which are new (and unexhausted) and

others that are conclusory. It is unclear whether petitioner meant to add claims to the original

petition, or to replace the original petition entirely with the amended one. In order to clear up

any confusion, the first amended petition is DISMISSED with leave to file a second amended

one. 

The Court instructs petitioner as follows. First, the second amended petition may

contain only those claims that have been exhausted. The first amended petition contains

unexhausted claims. These may not be raised in the new petition.1

 Any unexhausted claims

raised in the new petition will be summarily dismissed. Second, the second amended petition

entirely replaces the prior petitions. This means that any claims not included in the new

petition will be deemed waived. Petitioner must include all the claims he wishes to pursue

and he may not incorporate any prior petition or claim by reference. Third, the second

amended petition must include the caption and civil case number used in this order (10-0195

RS (PR)) and the words SECOND AMENDED PETITION on the first page. 

Failure to file an amended petition in accordance with this order will result in

dismissal of this action without further notice to petitioner. It is petitioner’s responsibility to

prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the Court informed of any change of address by

filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of Change of Address.” He must

Case 3:10-cv-00195-RS Document 25 Filed 10/23/15 Page 2 of 3
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

No. C 10-0195 RS (PR)

3 ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion or ask for an extension of time to do so. 

CONCLUSION 

The first amended petition (Docket No. 18) is DISMISSED with leave to file a second 

amended petition on or before December 1, 2015. Because this order addresses the concerns

raised in respondent’s motion to dismiss (Docket No. 20), that motion is DENIED as moot. 

The Clerk shall terminate Docket No. 20. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 23, 2015 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00195-RS Document 25 Filed 10/23/15 Page 3 of 3