Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05799/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05799-4/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD OVERSTREET, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

JAMES A. YATES, )

)

Respondent. )

)

)

 ) 

 )

1:04-cv-05799-LJO-TAG HC

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S EX

PARTE MOTION TO CORRECT FILING

ERROR (Doc. 33)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

FILE AMENDED PETITION LODGED ON

NOVEMBER 23, 2005

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

STRIKE AMENDED PETITION FILED ON

DECEMBER 14, 2005

(Doc. 31)

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed his original petition on June 4, 2004. (Doc. 1). On November 23, 2005,

Petitioner filed a motion for leave to amend his petition, after having exhausted previously

unexhausted claims in state court. (Doc. 28). On November 30, 2005, the Court granted Petitioner’s

motion and directed the Clerk of Court to send Petitioner a new habeas corpus form on which to

complete his amended petition. (Doc. 30). At the time the Court issued that Order, it was unaware

that Petitioner had, in conjunction with his motion for leave to amend, already lodged with the Court

his amended petition containing the newly exhausted claims. (See Lodged Second Amended

Complaint on November 23, 2005). Subsequently, in an apparent effort to satisfy the Court’s

November 30, 2005 Order, Petitioner completed and submitted a form petition that was then filed by

the Clerk of Court on December 14, 2005 as the first amended petition. (Doc. 31). 

///

Case 1:04-cv-05799-LJO -JMD Document 35 Filed 03/09/07 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

On January 10, 2007, Petitioner filed the instant ex parte motion to correct a filing error, in

which Petitioner explains that the petition he lodged with the Court on November 23, 2005 was

intended by him to be the operative amended petition, and that the petition filed on December 14,

2005 was “incomplete.” (Doc. 33, p. 1). Petitioner states that the amended petition received and

lodged by the Court on November 23, 2005, “is, and was intended to be, the controlling writ.” (Id.

at p. 2). Moreover, he states that the amended petition filed on December 14, 1005, “is incomplete

and not intended to replace the ‘2 Amended Petition’ (Nov. 23, 2005), but merely to provide the nd

Court with a copy of the exhausted claims denied by the California Supreme Court.” (Id.). 

Accordingly, GOOD CAUSE having been shown therefor, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as

follows:

1. Petitioner’s Ex Parte Motion To Correct Filing Error (Doc. 33), is GRANTED;

2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to FILE the previously lodged amended petition of

November 23, 2005; and,

3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to STRIKE the previously filed amended petition of

December 14, 2005 (Doc. 31). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 8, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:04-cv-05799-LJO -JMD Document 35 Filed 03/09/07 Page 2 of 2