Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04490/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04490-4/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES WASHINGTON,

Petitioner,

v.

D. OLLISON, warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 06-4490 SI (pr)

ORDER

Petitioner apparently wants to amend his habeas petition but has managed only to create

a rather confused record, as there still is not an adequate amended petition on file,

notwithstanding the fact that petitioner has filed four motions to amend. See docket # 12, # 27,

# 30, and # 32. His "motion requesting leave of the court to amend federal petition for writ of

habeas corpus" filed on September 28, 2007 (docket # 32) requests that his earlier motion (i.e.,

docket # 30) be disregarded because it had a few defects. Unfortunately, the most recent motion

(i.e., docket # 32) also has defects, so there still is not an adequate proposed amended pleading

for the court to consider. Specifically, the proposed second amended petition for writ of habeas

corpus refers to several documents that allegedly are attached to it, but there are no attachments

to the 10-page document. Additionally, the proposed second amended petition appears to

incorporate by reference another document (i.e., the original petition) which in turn incorporates

by reference other documents. Petitioner has created an unnecessarily confusing record and has

submitted an incomplete proposed second amended petition. Accordingly, the motion requesting

leave of court to amend is DENIED. (Docket # 32.) The earlier motion to amend filed July 26,

2007 (docket # 30) is DENIED as moot because petitioner states that it has been superseded by

his more recent motion to amend. 

Case 3:06-cv-04490-SI Document 33 Filed 10/15/07 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

27

28

2

Petitioner may file a new motion to amend provided that he fully complies with the

following directions. First, he must submit a proposed third amended petition for writ of habeas

corpus with his motion to amend. Second, the proposed third amended petition must have

attached to it all documents referred to in it. The court will not search through the file to find

other documents and assemble a coherent petition. Third, the third amended petition must

provide a complete and sequential list of all claims petitioner is asserting in this action (e.g.,

claim 1, claim 2, etc.) Due to the multiple layers of incorporation by reference, it is very

difficult to figure out how many claims petitioner wants to assert. Fourth, the motion to amend

must explain (a) which of the claims in the third amended petition were not included in the

original petition filed on July 24, 2006 and (b) why the new claims were not included in the

original petition. 

Petitioner must file and serve his motion to amend and proposed third amended petition

no later than November 16, 2007. This deadline will not be extended; if the documents are not

filed by that deadline, the action will go forward with only the claims that were asserted in the

original petition. Respondent must file and serve any opposition to the motion to amend no later

than December 21, 2007. Petitioner must file and serve his reply brief, if any, in support of his

motion no later than January 4, 2008. 

Petitioner's motion to lodge prior conviction transcripts is DENIED as unnecessary.

(Docket # 31.) Petitioner states that the because he states that those transcripts are already part

of the trial court's record. The trial court's record is normally filed with respondent's answer. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 15, 2007 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-04490-SI Document 33 Filed 10/15/07 Page 2 of 2