Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05988/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05988-0/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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 ROBERTO RANGEL, )

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

)

)

v. )

)

)

)

)

DERRAL G. ADAMS, Warden, )

)

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:04-CV-5988 OWW SMS HC 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO FILE DOCUMENT ENTITLED

“AMENDING COMPLAINT INCLUDING

THE NEWLY AND ALL EXHAUSTED

CLAIMS” RECEIVED AND LODGED ON

JANUARY 26, 2006

ORDER CONSTRUING PETITIONER’S

PLEADING AS MOTION TO AMEND

PETITION

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND

WITH LEAVE TO RENEW

ORDER VACATING STAY

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 20, 2004, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court. 

Petitioner raises the following two grounds for relief: (1) The evidence was insufficient to support

the charge of murder; and (2) The trial court committed error in admitting Petitioner's custodial

statements at trial in violation of his Miranda rights.

On September 22, 2004, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition as a mixed petition

Case 1:04-cv-05988-OWW -SMS Document 28 Filed 02/17/06 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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 2

containing exhausted and unexhausted claims.

On October 6, 2004, Petitioner filed an opposition to Respondent’s motion to dismiss.

On October 18, 2004, this Court issued a Report and Recommendation that recommended the

petition be dismissed with leave to amend to delete the unexhausted claim.

On October 27, 2004, Petitioner filed a motion to withdraw the unexhausted claim. 

On November 12, 2004, this Court granted Petitioner’s motion to withdraw the unexhausted

claim. On December 3, 2004, the Court issued an order directing Respondent to file a response.

On December 20, 2004, Petitioner filed a document entitled “Petitioner’s objections to this

Honorable court’s decision dated: 11/12/04; granting petitioner’s motion to withdraw unexhausted

claim . . . .” Petitioner declared he wanted an opportunity to return to state court to exhaust the

unexhausted claim: “Now, this court should take notice that petitioner chose to withdraw his

unexhausted claim; opting to return to the state court to exhaust his unexhausted claim.” See

Petitioner’s Objections at 2. Accordingly, Petitioner’s objections were construed as a motion to stay

the proceedings and hold the petition in abeyance pending exhaustion of the unexhausted claim. On

January 12, 2005, the Court found good cause to grant Petitioner’s motion with respect to the

unexhausted claim, and the proceedings were ordered stayed. Thereafter, Petitioner filed monthly

status reports advising the Court of his progress through the state courts.

On January 26, 2006, the Court received a pleading from Petitioner entitled “Amending

Complaint Including the Newly and All Exhausted Claims.” It appears Petitioner desires to amend

his petition with this pleading. Thus, the Clerk of Court will be directed to file this pleading and it

will be construed as a motion to amend the petition. 

Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in relevant part:

A party may amend the party's pleading once as a matter of course at any time before

a responsive pleading is served . . . . Otherwise a party may amend the party's pleading only

by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely given

when justice so requires.

As noted above, Petitioner raised two grounds for relief in his original petition: (1) He

claimed the evidence was insufficient to support the charge of murder; and (2) He claimed the trial

court erred in admitting his custodial statements at trial in violation of his Miranda rights. Following

Case 1:04-cv-05988-OWW -SMS Document 28 Filed 02/17/06 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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 3

a responsive pleading filed by Respondent, it was determined that Ground One was unexhausted.

Petitioner’s request was granted, and the Court stayed the petition to give Petitioner an opportunity to

exhaust the unexhausted claim. 

In his motion, however, Petitioner has included seven claims in addition to the two grounds

noted above. This is the first notice this Court has received of these new claims. Petitioner never

alerted the Court that he wished to raise additional claims. In fact, in his objections to the Court’

recommendation that the petition be dismissed because of the single unexhausted claim, Petitioner

deceptively stated he intended “to return to the state courts to litigate his claim as requested by

Petitioner, recommended by Respondent and this honorable court in its Report and

Recommendation.” See Petitioner’s Objections at 3 (emphasis added). Petitioner stated he was

concerned over whether the Court would provide him “an opportunity to return to the state courts to

exhaust his Claim I.” See Petitioner’s Objections at 2 (emphasis added). Petitioner further stated he

favored dismissal without prejudice “in order to exhaust his claim.” See Petitioner’s Objections at 3

(emphasis added). 

Thus, far from showing good cause, Petitioner’s attempted use of Rule 15(a) is abusive and

duplicitous. As pointed out by the Seventh Circuit, abuses of Rule 15 can be controlled by the district

court under subsection (a), which requires leave of court to file an amendment after a responsive

pleading has been filed. Ellzey v. United States, 324 F.3d 521, 527 (7th Cir.2003). Accordingly,

Petitioner’s request to amend the petition is DENIED without prejudice. Petitioner may renew his

motion to amend to include only the two claims he originally presented to this Court. The stay is

hereby VACATED. Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005). 

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to file Petitioner’s pleading entitled “Amending

Complaint Including the Newly and All Exhausted Claims” received and lodged in this Court on

January 26, 2006;

2) Petitioner’s pleading of January 26, 2006, is CONSTRUED as a motion to amend the

petition;

Case 1:04-cv-05988-OWW -SMS Document 28 Filed 02/17/06 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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 4

3) Petitioner’s motion to amend the petition is DENIED; Petitioner is GRANTED thirty (30)

days from the date of service of this order to renew the motion; and

4) The stay of the petition is VACATED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 16, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05988-OWW -SMS Document 28 Filed 02/17/06 Page 4 of 4