Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01144/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01144-1/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

CESAR ALFREDO TORRES, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

JAMES A. YATES, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:07-CV-00328 LJO SMS HC

1:07-CV-01144 LJO WMW HC

ORDER VACATING DISMISSAL AND

JUDGMENT

ORDER TO RE-FILE PETITION IN CASE

NO. “1:07-CV-01144 LJO WMW HC” INTO

CASE NO. “1:07-CV-00328 LJO SMS HC”

ORDER TO ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE

CASE NO. “1:07-CV-01144 LJO WMW HC”

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254.

On February 20, 2007, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The case was

assigned Case No. “1:07-CV-00327 LJO SMS HC.” On May 15, 2007, Respondent filed a motion to

dismiss the petition as a mixed petition containing unexhausted claims. Magistrate Judge Sandra M.

Snyder issued a Findings and Recommendation on July 10, 2007, recommending the motion be

granted and the petition be dismissed. When no objections were filed, on August 27, 2007, the

undersigned adopted the Findings and Recommendation and dismissed the petition. Judgment was

entered on the same date.

Case 1:07-cv-01144-LJO-WMW Document 8 Filed 09/19/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

On August 7, 2007, and while the Findings and Recommendation was pending, Petitioner

filed a new petition for writ of habeas corpus along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and

motion to appoint counsel. In answer to the question on the form petition whether Petitioner had

“previously filed any petitions, applications, or motions with respect to this judgment in any court,

state or federal,” Petitioner stated: “No.” Therefore, a new petition was opened and screened

accordingly.

On August 30, 2007, Petitioner filed in both cases a notice of “Duplicate Habeas Corpus

Writs.” Petitioner states he did not intend to open a new case with the filing of the new petition.

Rather, he intended the new petition be filed in the first case as an amended petition striking the

unexhausted claims as contemplated in the Findings and Recommendation of July 10, 2007.

Unfortunately, nothing on the new petition or the accompanying pleadings indicated such. Petitioner

requests that the first case be re-opened, the petition filed in the second case be re-filed in the first

case, and the second case be closed. The Court will excuse Petitioner’s error in this instance. 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that:

1. The Order of August 27, 2007, which had dismissed the petition in Case No. “1:07-

CV-00328 LJO SMS HC” is VACATED, as is the judgment entered thereon;

2. The Clerk of the Court SHALL RE-FILE the petition in Case No. 

“1:07-CV-01144 LJO WMW HC” into Case No. “1:07-CV-00328 LJO SMS HC” as

an amended petition; and

3. The Clerk of the Court SHALL ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE Case No. 

“1:07-CV-01144 LJO WMW HC.”

Petitioner is advised that pursuant to Local Rule 7-132, documentation submitted to the Court

should be in caption form and include the appropriate case number, i.e., “1:07-CV-00328 LJO SMS

HC.”

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 12, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01144-LJO-WMW Document 8 Filed 09/19/07 Page 2 of 2