Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01758/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01758-5/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

ZANE HUBBARD,

Petitioner,

v.

GIPSON,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00509-LJO-SAB-HC

Case No. 1:13-cv-01758-LJO-JLT-HC

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO FILE PETITION [ECF #1] FROM CASE 

1:14-cv-00509-LJO-SAB-HC IN CASE 1:13-

cv-01758-LJO-JLT-HC AS A MOTION TO 

AMEND

ORDER ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING 

CASE 1:14-cv-00509-LJO-SAB-HC

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On October 23, 2013, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court. 

The case was assigned Case No. 1:13-cv-01758-LJO-JLT-HC. He then filed a first amended 

petition on December 6, 2013. The petition challenges Petitioner’s 2011 conviction in Kern 

County Superior Court for kidnaping, carjacking, armed robbery, assault with a firearm, terrorist 

threats, and multiple enhancements. The petition is currently pending review by the Court. 

On April 11, 2014, Petitioner filed a new petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court. 

The case was assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-00509-LJO-SAB-HC. The petition also challenges 

Petitioner’s 2011 conviction out of Kern County Superior Court. 

///

Case 1:13-cv-01758-LJO-JLT Document 22 Filed 04/23/14 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

I.

DISCUSSION

“[W]here a new pro se petition is filed before the adjudication of a prior petition is 

complete, the new petition should be construed as a motion to amend the pending petition rather 

than as a successive application.” Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886, 888-890 (9th Cir. 2008). But 

where the claims have already be denied in the previously-filed action, the new petition is 

construed as a second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). Beaty v. Schriro, 554 

F.3d 780, 782-83 (9th Cir.2009).

In this case, the petition filed in Case No. 1:13-cv-01758-LJO-JLT-HC had not been 

adjudicated when Petitioner commenced his second action. Therefore, the Court must consider

the petition filed in Case No. 1:14-cv-00509-LJO-SAB-HC as a motion to amend the previouslyfiled petition. 

II.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to FILE the Petition (ECF No. 1) from Case No. 

1:14-cv-00509-LJO-SAB-HC in Case No. 1:13-cv-01758-LJO-JLT-HC as a Motion to Amend;

2) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE Case No. 1:14-

cv-00509-LJO-SAB-HC; and

3) Petitioner is INSTRUCTED that all future pleadings should be identified by the case 

number: 1:13-cv-01758-LJO-JLT-HC.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 23, 2014 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01758-LJO-JLT Document 22 Filed 04/23/14 Page 2 of 2