Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02019/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02019-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mariposa County Court
Respondent
Roger Wayne Robertson
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

ROGER WAYNE ROBERTSON,

Petitioner,

v.

MARIPOSA COUNTY COURT,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:13-cv-02019-GSA-HC

Case No. 1:13-cv-01775-SMS-HC

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO FILE PETITION [ECF #1] FROM CASE 

1:13-cv-02019-GSA-HC IN CASE 1:13-cv01775-SAB-HC AS A MOTION TO AMEND

ORDER ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING 

CASE 1:13-cv-02019-GSA-HC

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has consented to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

On November 1, 2013, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court. 

The case was assigned Case No. 1:13-cv-01775-SMS-HC. The petition challenges Petitioner’s 

2010 conviction for kidnap and rape sustained in Mariposa County Superior Court. On 

November 5, 2013, he filed a First Amended Petition. On December 12, 2013, Magistrate Judge 

Sandra M. Snyder dismissed the petition and granted Petitioner leave to file an amended petition. 

On December 26, 2013, Petitioner filed a Second Amended Petition. 

On December 9, 2013, Petitioner filed a second petition for writ of habeas corpus in this

Court. The case was assigned Case No. 1:13-cv-02019-GSA-HC. The petition also challenges 

Case 1:13-cv-02019-GSA Document 5 Filed 01/07/14 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

Petitioner’s 2010 conviction out of Mariposa County Superior Court. 

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-01775-SMS-HC had not been 

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

the petition filed in Case No. 1:13-cv-02019-GSA-HC as a motion to amend the previously-filed 

petition. 

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

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

1:13-cv-02019-GSA-HC in Case No. 1:13-cv-01775-SMS-HC as a Motion to Amend;

2) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE Case No. 1:13-

cv-02019-GSA-HC; and

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

number: 1:13-cv-01775-SMS-HC.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 6, 2014 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

6i0kij8d

Case 1:13-cv-02019-GSA Document 5 Filed 01/07/14 Page 2 of 2