Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01103/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01103-2/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

GARY STEVEN LOESCH, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

TERRI GONZALES, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:12-cv-1103-EFB P 

ORDER 

 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding with counsel, seeks a writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See ECF No. 1 (Apr. 25, 2012 petition). On September 11, 2012, 

respondent filed an answer to the petition. ECF No. 18. Thereafter, petitioner filed a document 

vaguely suggesting that he may wish to assert additional claims for relief. ECF No. 23. On 

August 15, 2013, the court issued an order acknowledging petitioner’s filing and granting him 30 

days within which to file a motion to amend the petition, along with a proposed amended petition. 

ECF No. 26. The court warned that any amended petition must “be complete in itself without 

reference to any prior petition, and contain only exhausted claims.” Id. On September 16, 2013, 

petitioner filed a “first amended petition.” ECF No. 27. For the reasons stated below, the “first 

amended petition” is disregarded, and the action stands submitted for decision on the claims in 

petitioner’s April 25, 2012 petition. 

///// 

Case 2:12-cv-01103-EFB Document 28 Filed 01/15/14 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 failed to file a motion to amend as instructed. Instead, he simply filed a 

proposed “first amended petition.” ECF No. 27. Based upon this filing alone, the court cannot 

determine the grounds for petitioner’s proposed amendments. The “first amended petition” 

abandons several claims that petitioner raised in the original petition, and that respondent’s 

answer did not challenge as unexhausted. Yet petitioner has not expressed an intent to abandon 

these claims. If petitioner intended to supplement his original petition in a piecemeal fashion 

through the “first amended petition,” he is reminded that he may not so proceed. Because the 

“first amended petition” is not supported by a motion to amend articulating the bases for the 

proposed amendments, and is not complete in itself without reference to the original petition, it is 

disregarded. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the “first amended petition” (ECF No. 27) 

is disregarded, and the action stands submitted for decision on the claims in petitioner’s April 25, 

2012 petition. 

DATED: January 15, 2014. 

Case 2:12-cv-01103-EFB Document 28 Filed 01/15/14 Page 2 of 2