Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01164/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01164-2/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERALD L. TUCKER,

Petitioner,

v.

DANIEL PARAMO,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01164-AWI-SAB (HC)

ORDER VACATING AUGUST 20, 2015 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION , 

DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF 

HABEAS CORPUS AND FIRST AMENDED 

PETITION, GRANTING PETITIONER 

LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED 

PETITION, AND DIRECTING CLERK OF 

COURT TO MAIL PETITIONER BLANK 

HABEAS FORMS

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On July 22, 2015, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court. (ECF 

No. 1). On August 20, 2015, this Court issued findings and recommendation that recommended 

that the petition be dismissed as successive. (ECF No. 7). On September 10, 2015, Petitioner 

filed a first amended petition. (ECF No. 11). On September 10, 2015, Petitioner filed a motion 

to recuse, which the undersigned denied on September 14, 2015. (ECF Nos. 9, 10). 

I.

DISCUSSION

On September 10, 2015, Petitioner filed a first amended petition for writ of habeas 

corpus. (ECF No. 11). The rule for amendment of petitions, Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of 

Case 1:15-cv-01164-AWI-SAB Document 12 Filed 09/24/15 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

Civil Procedure, provides that:

(1) A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course 

within:

(A) 21 days after serving it, or

(B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is 

required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 

days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), 

whichever is earlier. 

(2) In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with 

the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The 

could should freely give leave when justice so requires. 

In this case, Petitioner did not file the first amended petition within 21 days after serving 

the original petition and Respondent has not served a responsive pleading or a motion under Rule 

12(b), (e), or (f). In addition, Petitioner has not obtained written consent of the opposing party. 

Therefore, Petitioner may only file an amended petition with the court’s leave.

The basic scope of habeas corpus is prescribed by statute. Title 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) 

states:

The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district 

court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in 

behalf of a person in custody pursuant to a judgment of a State 

court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the 

Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.

See also Rule 1 to the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Court. 

The Supreme Court has held that “the essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in 

custody upon the legality of that custody . . .” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973).

Further, Petitioner must state his claim with sufficient specificity. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 

F.2d at 491-92; Wacht v. Cardwell, 604 F.2d 1245, 1246-47 (9th Cir.1979). 

Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases states:

The petition must:

(1) specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner;

(2) state the facts supporting each ground;

(3) state the relief requested;

(4) be printed, typewritten, or legibly handwritten; and

(5) be signed under penalty of perjury by the petitioner or by a 

person authorized to sign it for the petitioner under 28 U.S.C. § 

2242.

Rule 2(d) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases states:

Case 1:15-cv-01164-AWI-SAB Document 12 Filed 09/24/15 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

The petition must substantially follow either the form appended to 

these rules or a form prescribed by a local district-court rule. The 

clerk must make forms available to petitioners without charge. 

Upon a review of Petitioner’s first amended petition, it is difficult to determine which 

state court conviction and judgment Petitioner is challenging. It appears that Petitioner makes 

references in his first amended petition to three state court convictions: (1) his 1998 conviction in 

Fresno County Superior Court for failure to register as a sex offender; (2) his 2002 conviction for 

possession of a weapon by an inmate in Tulare County Superior Court; and (3) his 2002 

conviction for murder in Tulare County Superior Court. Even when viewing the first amended 

petition and the original petition together, it is difficult to tell which state court conviction 

Petitioner is challenging. As Petitioner has filed a first amended petition and the Court is unable 

to tell which conviction Petitioner is challenging in the first amended petition and the original 

petition, the Court vacates the August 20, 2015 findings and recommendation. 

At this time, the first amended petition is unclear as to which conviction Petitioner is 

challenging and what claims for relief Petitioner is pursuing. Upon further review, the Court 

also finds that Petitioner’s original petition does not clearly state the conviction which Petitioner 

is challenging and the grounds for relief. Therefore, the Court must dismiss the original petition

and the first amended petition. However, Petitioner can correct the deficiencies by clarifying his 

claims for the Court in the form of a second amended petition. Petitioner should clearly state 

which state court conviction he is challenging in his second amended petition. Petitioner is

advised that he must reference the instant case number and designate his petition as a “Second 

Amended Petition.” Petitioner is forewarned that failure to comply with this order will result in 

dismissal of the action. 

II.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The August 20, 2015 Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 7) is vacated; 

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) and first amended petition for writ 

Case 1:15-cv-01164-AWI-SAB Document 12 Filed 09/24/15 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

of habeas corpus (ECF No. 11) are DISMISSED with leave to amend;

3. Petitioner is GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order to file a 

second amended petition; and

4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Petitioner blank forms for a petition for 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 24, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01164-AWI-SAB Document 12 Filed 09/24/15 Page 4 of 4