Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00190/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00190-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM CECIL THORNTON,

Petitioner,

v.

MICHAEL STRAINER, Warden,

Respondent.

 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 11-cv-190-LAB(JMA)

ORDER: 

1) DENYING PETITIONER’S EX

PARTE APPLICATION FOR JOINDER

OF CLAIMS [DOC. NO. 22]; 

2) DENYING REQUEST FOR ENTRY

OF DEFAULT [DOC. NO. 14]; 

3) GRANTING MOTION TO RENAME

RESPONDENT [DOC. NO. 24]; AND 

4) DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE TO

PROVIDE PETITIONER WITH A COPY

OF THE ANSWER AND TO MODIFY

THE DOCKET TO REFLECT

"MATTHEW CATE, SECRETARY" AS

RESPONDENT

EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR JOINDER OF CLAIMS

On January 27, 2011, Petitioner William Cecil Thornton filed a Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. [Doc. No.1.] Thereafter, he attempted to

file a document captioned “Petition for Joiner of Case’s and Claims,” in which Thornton

requested claims he filed in Thornton v. Cate, et al., Case No. 11CV1485-BEN(WMC)

be coordinated with this case. On August 30, 2011, the Court rejected the document for

filing because Thornton v. Cate, et al., Case No. 11CV1485-BEN(WMC) had already

been dismissed and terminated on the basis it was duplicative of this action. [Doc. No.

11.]

Case 3:11-cv-00190-LAB-JMA Document 26 Filed 10/17/11 Page 1 of 4
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 Thornton v. Schwarzenegger, et al., Case No. 10CV1583-RBB, Thornton filed a

Complaint under the Civil Rights Act pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in which he challenged

conditions of his parole. The Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and terminated the

case on June 1, 2011, in part on the basis that Thornton's claims were not cognizable under §

1983 and must be prosecuted in a claim for habeas relief. Thornton thereafter filed Thornton

v. Cate, et al., Case No. 11CV1485-BEN(WMC), raising the claims made in the

Schwarzenegger case under habeas law. 

2

 If any claims brought in Schwarzenegger are to be added here, the legal basis for

these claims must arise solely under federal habeas law and not under § 1983.

3

 Rule 15(c) states: “An amendment of a pleading relates back to the date of the original

pleading when ... the amendment asserts a claim or defense that arose out of the conduct,

transaction, or occurrence set out–or attempted to be set out–in the original pleading.” Fed.

Rule Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(B). In Mayle, the Supreme Court held that “claims added by amendment

[must] arise from the same core facts as the timely filed claims,” and must not be “separate in

2

Thornton then filed an Ex Parte Application seeking to have the proceedings in

this case coordinated with the aforementioned Cate action and also Thornton v.

Schwarzenegger, et al., Case No. 10CV1583-RBB. [Doc. No. 22.] Thornton explained

that the factual basis for these cases is shared. He initially filed Schwarzenegger,

predicating his claims on liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but when they were dismissed

as not being cognizable under that statute, he attempted to seek federal habeas relief in

Cate. Thornton claims the cases should be coordinated because some of the claims

that were made in these two cases were not filed in this case. The ex parte application

is denied, however, because both Cate and Schwarzenegger have been terminated and

coordination, therefore, is not appropriate.1

 

If Thornton seeks to add claims that were made in Cate, or its predecessor §

1983 action Schwarzenegger, and that have not already been raised in his Petition in

this case, he must file a Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Petition no later than

November 4, 2011.

2

 Any such motion shall include as an exhibit a copy of the

proposed First Amended Petition, which shall be complete in itself without reference to

the original Petition or any other filings in this case or any other case. See Civ LR 15.1 

Furthermore, all proposed new claims must be timely filed or “relate back” to the claims

made in the Petition filed in this action.3 Respondent may file an opposition to the

Case 3:11-cv-00190-LAB-JMA Document 26 Filed 10/17/11 Page 2 of 4
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 both time and type from the originally raised episodes.” Mayle, 545 U.S. at 657 (quotation and

citation omitted).

3

Motion for Leave File a First Amended Petition within fourteen (14) days of the filing

of the motion. 

REQUEST TO ENTER DEFAULT

In a separate filing, Thornton requests the Court enter default as to Respondent

Matthew Strainer, on the basis an Answer or Notice of Appearance was not timely filed. 

[Doc. No. 14.] Respondent did, however, file an Answer on August 30, 2011, which

apparently has not been received by Thornton. [Doc. No. 12 and 25.] The motion is

denied, therefore, as moot. The Clerk’s Office is directed to provide Thornton with a

courtesy copy of the Answer concurrent with service of this Order. If Thornton intends

to file a Traverse to the Answer instead of filing a Motion for Leave to File a First

Amended Petition, his deadline to do so is extended to November 4, 2011. 

MOTION TO RENAME RESPONDENT

 Thornton has also filed a motion seeking to rename the Respondent in this

action. At the time of filing, Thornton was apparently housed at California Correctional

Institution (“CCI”) and thus named Michael Warden, as Respondent. Based on the

notice of change of address Petitioner submitted to the Court on August 22, 2011, it

appears Petitioner is no longer housed at CCI; rather, it appears he is presently

incarcerated at Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, California. [Doc. No. 10.]

A writ of habeas corpus acts upon the custodian of the state prisoner. See 28

U.S.C. § 2242; Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Because Thornton's place of custody

has changed, so has his custodian. Accordingly, in order to conform with the

requirements of Rule 2(a) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, the Court GRANTS

Thornton’s Motion to Rename Respondent. To avoid changing the Respondent again if

Thornton is transferred to another prison or paroled, the Court hereby sua sponte

ORDERS the substitution of Matthew Cate, Secretary of the California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation, as Respondent in place of "Michael Strainer." See

Case 3:11-cv-00190-LAB-JMA Document 26 Filed 10/17/11 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996) (stating that the respondent

in § 2254 proceedings may be the chief officer in charge of state penal institutions).

The Clerk of the Court shall modify the docket to reflect "Matthew Cate,

Secretary" as respondent in place of "Michael Strainer."

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 17, 2011

Jan M. Adler

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00190-LAB-JMA Document 26 Filed 10/17/11 Page 4 of 4