Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01070/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01070-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NINO GADDINI, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

ROBERT AYERS, Warden,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-1070 JSW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE

TO AMEND AND INSTRUCTIONS TO

THE CLERK

(Docket No. 3)

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of California, currently incarcerated at the San

Quentin State Prison in San Quentin, California, has filed a habeas corpus petition

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the constitutional validity of his state sentence. 

Petitioner has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, which is now GRANTED

(docket no. 3). 

The petition is now before the Court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2243 and

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Because the Court cannot determine

whether Petitioner’s claims are related to his earlier petition, Case No. C-06-7249 JSW

(PR), the petition is dismissed with leave to amend within thirty days. 

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, Petitioner was convicted after a plea of “no contest” in

Contra Costa County Superior Court and sentenced to a term of 2 years in state prison on

March 28, 2006. It appears that this sentence may have been the result of a probation or

parole revocation proceeding. Petitioner alleges that he filed collateral challenges in the

Case 3:07-cv-01070-JSW Document 5 Filed 07/26/07 Page 1 of 5
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

state courts, the final one occurring in the California Supreme Court, which was denied in

2007. Petitioner filed the instant federal habeas petition on February 21, 2007. 

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

This court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a

person in custody pursuant to the 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.” 28

U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

It shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause

why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the

applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” Id. § 2243. 

II. Discussion

It appears that the petition may raised multiple claims involving the same

underlying conviction as Petitioner’s case currently pending before this Court under

Case No. C 06-7249 JSW (PR). Although it isn’t entirely clear, Petitioner may have

been sentenced on a parole revocation in these cases.

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA") was

signed into law on April 24, 1996. Under AEDPA, a district court must dismiss claims

presented in a second or successive habeas petition challenging the same conviction and

sentence that were raised in a previous petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1); Babbitt v.

Woodford, 177 F.3d 744, 745-46 (9th Cir. 1999). Additionally, a district court must

dismiss any new claims raised in a successive petition unless the petitioner received an

order from the court of appeals authorizing the district court to consider the petition. 28

U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). 

If the claims from both petitions do, in fact, relate to the same underlying

proceeding, Petitioner may be able to amend the earlier petition to include these

additional claims. The Civil Rule governing pleading amendments, Federal Rule of

Case 3:07-cv-01070-JSW Document 5 Filed 07/26/07 Page 2 of 5
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

Civil Procedure 15, made applicable to habeas proceedings by 28 U.S.C. § 2242, Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 81(a)(2), and Habeas Corpus Rule 11, allows pleading

amendments with leave of court any time during a proceeding. Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S.

644, 654-55 (2005) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)). Before a responsive pleading is

served, pleadings may be amended once as a matter of course, i.e., without seeking court

leave. Id. at 655. It does not appear that Respondent has filed a responsive pleading as

of this date. Therefore, if Petitioner’s claims relate to the same conviction and sentence

as the earlier case, Petitioner may wish to file an amended petition on that case, raising

all of the claims he wishes to pursue.

However, because this Court is unable to conclusively determine whether both

petitions relate to the same underlying proceeding and therefore are subject to the rules

regarding second or successive petitions, the case must be dismissed with leave to

amend. Within thirty days of the date of this order, Petitioner must file a pleading which

informs the Court whether the claims in this petition arise from the same conviction and

sentence as those on Case No. C 06-7249 JSW (PR). If the claims do in fact arise out of

the same conviction and Petitioner wishes to file an amended petition raising all claims

on the earlier-filed case, he may file a voluntary dismissal in this action. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, this action is dismissed with

leave to file a responsive pleading within thirty days of the date of this order informing

this Court whether the claims raised herein relate to the same sentence as those on

Petitioner’s earlier-filed habeas action. Failure to file a responsive pleading by the

deadline will result in dismissal of this action.

If Petitioner chooses to file an amended petition in Case No. c 06-7249 JSW (PR),

he must do so within thirty days of the date of this order. Petitioner is reminded that an

amended complaint filed as a matter of course or after leave of court supersedes the

original complaint. "[A] plaintiff waives all causes of action alleged in the original

Case 3:07-cv-01070-JSW Document 5 Filed 07/26/07 Page 3 of 5
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

complaint which are not alleged in the amended complaint." London v. Coopers &

Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981). In the event that he chooses to file an

amended complaint on the earlier action, Petitioner may file a notice of voluntary

dismissal in this case.

It is Petitioner's responsibility to prosecute this case. He 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 comply with any orders of the Court within the

time allowed, or ask for an extension of that time. Failure to do so may result in the

dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 41(b). See Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (Rule

41(b) applicable in habeas cases). The Clerk shall serve a courtesy copy of this order on

the Respondent in Case No. C 06-7249 JSW (PR). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 26, 2007

 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01070-JSW Document 5 Filed 07/26/07 Page 4 of 5
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

NINO GADDINI,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ROBERT AYERS et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV07-01070 JSW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on July 26, 2007, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing

said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Nino Gaddini

F22217

CSP-San Quentin

San Quentin, CA 94974

Dated: July 26, 2007

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:07-cv-01070-JSW Document 5 Filed 07/26/07 Page 5 of 5