Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02322/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02322-3/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM RAY BARTON,

Petitioner,

v.

JOSIE GASTELO,

Respondent.

No. 2:19-CV-2322-DMC-P

ORDER

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the Court is respondent’s motion 

(ECF No. 15) to vacate the March 6, 2020 order to respond to petitioner’s amended petition. 

It appears that there are currently two active petitions before the Court pertaining 

to the same underlying conviction of petitioner. In the first case, Barton v. San Joaquin, 2:19-cv00148-MCE-DMC (Barton I), petitioner initially filed his habeas petition on January 4, 2019, in 

the Northern District1. The case was then transferred to this Court on September 25, 2019, and 

respondent was ordered to file a response to petitioner’s second amended petition. As of this date, 

the following motions are pending in Barton I: 

1. ECF No. 27 Motion to Amend Petition by Petitioner. 

2. ECF No. 28 Motion to Dismiss Petition by Respondent.

/ / /

Case 2:19-cv-02322-DMC Document 16 Filed 06/04/20 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

In the present case, petitioner submitted a petition for writ of habeas corpus on 

November 18, 2019, ECF No. 1. On January 21, 2020, petitioner filed an amended petition, ECF 

No. 9. On March 6, 2020, the Court directed respondent to file a response to plaintiff’s first 

amended petition, ECF No. 10. On May 6, 2020, respondent submitted this motion to vacate the 

March 6 order, ECF No. 15. Specifically, respondent requests that: (1) the order to respond to the 

petition in this case be vacated; (2) the petition in this case be construed as a motion to amend in 

Barton I; (3) a new briefing schedule be set in Barton I; and (4) this case be administratively 

closed as duplicative. See id. at pg. 1. 

Petitioner appears aware of these duplicative cases and wishes to proceed on the 

petition he has submitted in this case. See ECF No. 37. Petitioner has also not submitted an 

opposition to respondent’s current motion. As such, there appears to be good cause for granting 

respondent’s motion. See e.g. Goodrum v. Busby, 824 F.3d 1188, 1194-95 (9th Cir. 2016). 

Pending motions and a briefing schedule in Barton I will be addressed by separate order issued in 

that case.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Respondent’s motion to vacate (ECF No. 15) is GRANTED; 

2. The Court’s order (ECF No. 10) directing respondent to respond to the 

petition is VACATED; 

3. The amended petition (ECF No. 9) in this case shall be construed as 

petitioner’s fourth amended petition in 2:19-cv-00148-MCE-DMC, filed as of January 21, 2020; 

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to administratively close the instant 

action as duplicative.

Dated: June 4, 2020

____________________________________

DENNIS M. COTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:19-cv-02322-DMC Document 16 Filed 06/04/20 Page 2 of 2