Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00501/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00501-8/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

MICHAEL LEWIS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

ROY A. CASTRO, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:06-CV-00501 OWW NEW (DLB) HC 

ORDER CONSTRUING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS MOTION TO

LIFT STAY AND AMEND PETITION

[Doc. #33]

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S

MOTION TO LIFT STAY

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER LEAVE

TO FILE AN AMENDED PETITION

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

On March 7, 2007, the District Court issued an Order adopting the Findings and

Recommendation issued on January 25, 2007. Respondent’s motion to dismiss was denied and

Petitioner was granted a stay of the proceedings to allow him to return to state court to exhaust his

state remedies with respect to his single unexhausted claim. 

On September 12, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion entitled “Motion for Court to Give

Judgment Without Regard to Technical Errors Not Affecting Substantial Rights.” Petitioner attached 

several other documents to this motion. A review of these documents reveals that Petitioner has

completed exhaustion of his state remedies with respect to his unexhausted claim. He asks that the

Case 1:06-cv-00501-LJO-GSA Document 34 Filed 09/25/07 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

stay be lifted and the proceedings resume. He has submitted an amended petition; however, the

proposed amended petition is confusing in setting forth the claims. The amended petition only

presents one claim and then refers the Court to the attached memorandum for supporting facts and

argument. However, the attached memorandum also references the original petition. It is not clear

whether Petitioner intends to abandon the claim he initially included with the newly exhausted claim,

or if he intends to retain it. Petitioner is advised that the amended petition must be complete in and of

itself. In other words, the Court will not refer back to previous petitions to locate claims he seeks to

present. If he wishes to include the initial claim he presented, it too must be included in the amended

petition. The instant proposed amended petition is therefore deficient.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1) Petitioner’s motion for judgment is CONSTRUED as a motion to lift the stay and amend

the petition;

2) Petitioner’s motion to lift the stay is GRANTED;

3) Petitioner’s motion to amend the petition is GRANTED:

4) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to provide Petitioner with a blank habeas form petition;

and

5) Petitioner is GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order to file an

amended petition.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 24, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00501-LJO-GSA Document 34 Filed 09/25/07 Page 2 of 2