Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00711/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00711-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Connie Gipson
Respondent
Paul Rymalowicz
Petitioner

Document Text:

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The original petition was filed on May 15, 2013. (Doc. 1). After conducting a preliminary 

screening of the petition, the Court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the petition because the 

only claim appeared to be one for a reduction in restitution. Accordingly, the Court issued Findings 

and Recommendations to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. 5). On June 28, 2013, the 

PAUL RYMALOWICZ,

 Petitioner,

v.

CONNIE GIPSON, Warden,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-00711-LJO-JLT

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 

FILE LODGED AMENDED PETITION AS 

SECOND AMENDED PETITION (Doc. 23)

PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR STAY IS DENIED 

AS MOOT (Doc. 22) 

ORDER REQUIRING RESPONDENT TO FILE A 

RESPONSE

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 

SERVE DOCUMENTS ON ATTORNEY 

GENERAL

Case 1:13-cv-00711-LJO-JLT Document 26 Filed 12/11/14 Page 1 of 6
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

District Judge adopted those Findings and Recommendations. (Doc. 8). Subsequently, Petitioner 

appealed the dismissal and, on May 21, 2014, the Ninth Circuit vacated the dismissal and remanded 

the case back to the Magistrate Judge for consideration of Petitioner’s claim that he was denied the 

effective assistance of counsel. (Doc. 13). The Ninth Circuit did not disturb the Court’s conclusion 

that it lacked jurisdiction over Petitioner’s claim to reduce restitution. 

On May 23, 2014, the Court ordered Petitioner to file a first amended petition because the 

original petition contained only the bare allegation that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to assist 

Petitioner in filing his notice of appeal. (Doc. 14). In that order, the Court pointed out to Petitioner 

that, to be successful, a federal claim of ineffective assistance required proof that (1) counsel’s 

representation fell below the minimum standard required for legal representation and (2) that this error 

was prejudicial, i.e., that more likely than not if the error had not occurred a different result would 

have obtained. The Court explained to Petitioner that any amended petition must contain allegations 

explaining why counsel’s failure to assist him with filing his notice of appeal was prejudicial, i.e., 

what claims he would have raised had counsel helped him to file a timely notice of appeal. Without 

such allegations, a claim of ineffective assistance fails to state a cognizable federal habeas claim. The 

Court will not just assume that prejudice results from a claim of federal error.

After several extensions of time, on August 29, 2014, Petitioner filed his first amended 

petition. That first amended petition did not appear to allege that counsel was ineffective, but instead 

alleged that the trial judge erred in permitting the introduction of statutory “text” that was 

unauthorized. 1 (Doc. 20). On September 2, 2014, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why the 

first amended petition should not be dismissed for lack of exhaustion. (Doc. 22). On September 22, 

2014, Petitioner filed a motion to stay and abey proceedings pending exhaustion of the new issue in 

state court along with an amended petition containing that claim, which was lodged but not filed by 

the Clerk of the Court. (Docs. 22 & 23). Petitioner also filed a declaration in support of the lodged 

amended petition. (Doc. 24). On December 8, 2014, Petitioner filed a status report advising the Court 

 

1

Subsequently, Petitioner pointed out to the Court that, buried in his first amended petition was an allegation that trial 

counsel was ineffective. Petitioner is advised that any future pleading should expressly set forth each claim, e.g., 

ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, error by trial judge, as separate and distinct claims, rather than 

lumping all claims into one set of factual allegations. 

Case 1:13-cv-00711-LJO-JLT Document 26 Filed 12/11/14 Page 2 of 6
3

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

that the California Supreme Court had denied his petition, thus exhausting the claims raised in the 

lodged petition.

DISCUSSION

After careful consideration, the Court will construe Petitioner’s declaration in support of the 

lodged petition (Doc. 24), as a motion to file the lodged petition as the second amended petition. A 

petitioner may amend a petition for writ of habeas corpus once “as a matter of course,” and without 

leave of Court, before a response has been filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), as 

applied to habeas corpus actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2242 and Rule 11 of the Rules Governing 

Section 2254 Cases. Calderon v. United States District Court (Thomas), 144 F.3d 618, 620 (9th Cir. 

1998); Bonn v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995). Leave of Court is required for all other 

amendments. Rule Civ. P. 15(a). 

Where, as here, Petitioner has already filed a first amended petition pursuant to Rule 15(a), 

additional amended pleadings may only be filed with the Court’s permission. The Court, in deciding 

whether to allow such an amendment, may consider "bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing 

party, futility of the amendment, and whether the party has previously amended his pleadings." Bonin 

v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 844-45 (9th Cir.1995) (applying Rule 15(a) in a habeas case). Since 

Respondent has not filed a response, and, indeed, has yet to enter an appearance in this case, the Court 

can find no prejudice in permitting the lodged petition to be filed. Nor does the Court find evidence 

that Petitioner is acting in bad faith.

The Court is aware, however, that, quite apart from the issue of exhaustion, several legal 

obstacles may preclude Petitioner from ultimately obtaining a ruling on the merits of his amended 

petition. First, the Court observed that the California Supreme Court denied the state petition with 

citations to In re Swain, 34 Cal.2d 300, 304 (1949) and People v. Duvall, 9 Cal.4th 464, 474 (1995). 

(Doc. 25, p. 3). Citations to those two cases normally signals that the state petitioner has failed to state 

his claim with sufficient particularity for the state court to examine the merits of the claim, and/or has 

failed to “include copies of reasonably available documentary evidence supporting the claim, 

including pertinent portions of trial transcripts and affidavits or declarations.” Duvall, 9 Cal.4th at 474. 

Because the state petitioner could “cure” the defect by filing an amended petition with the necessary 

Case 1:13-cv-00711-LJO-JLT Document 26 Filed 12/11/14 Page 3 of 6
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

specificity and/or documentation, the claims therein are considered still to be unexhausted. Kim v. 

Villalobos, 799 F.2d 1317, 1319 (9th Cir. 1986). 

Second, it appears that Petitioner’s amended claims may not be timely under the AEDPA. 

Under AEDPA, claims must be filed within one year of the date upon which Petitioner’s direct review 

concludes, with limited exceptions. Under Rule 15(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, an 

amendment of a pleading relates back to the date of the original pleading when “the claim or defense 

asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or 

attempted to be set forth in the original pleading.” The rule applies in habeas corpus proceedings. 

Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 650 (2005); Anthony v. Cambra, 236 F.3d 568, 576 (9th Cir. 2000). 

In Mayle, the United States Supreme Court held that relation back is in order if the claim to be 

amended into the petition is tied to the original timely petition by “a common core of operative facts.” 

Mayle, 545 U.S. at 664. Conversely, the claim does not relate back when it asserts a new ground for 

relief supported by facts that differ in both “time and type” from those the original pleading set forth. 

Id. at 650. The Mayle court expressly rejected the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of the rule that a 

claim relates back if it arises merely from the same judgment and conviction. Id. at 656-657. Thus, 

relation back is “ordinarily allowed ‘when the new claim is based on the same facts as the original 

pleading and only changes the legal theory.’” Woodward v. Williams, 263 F.3d 1135, 1142 (10th Cir. 

2001), quoting 3 J. Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 15.19[2], pp. 15-82 (3d ed. 2004). It is 

unclear whether the newly-exhausted claim is based upon the same facts as the claims in the original 

pleading. If it is not, then the claim may be untimely under the AEDPA and would require dismissal 

of the entire amended petition.

However, despite these misgivings, the Court will order a response from Respondent, which 

response will include authorization to file a motion to dismiss the second amended petition should 

legal grounds therefore exist. 

ORDER

Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases and Rule 16 of the 

Case 1:13-cv-00711-LJO-JLT Document 26 Filed 12/11/14 Page 4 of 6
5

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

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,1the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

1. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to file the lodged petition (Doc. 23), as the 

Second Amended Petition;

2. Petitioner’s motion for stay of proceedings (Doc. 22), is DENIED as MOOT;

3. Respondent SHALL FILE a RESPONSE to the Second Amended Petition2, 3 within 60

days of the date of service of this order. See Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 

Cases; Cluchette v. Rushen, 770 F.2d 1469, 1473-1474 (9th Cir. 1985)(court has 

discretion to fix time for filing a response). A Response can be made by filing one of 

the following:

A. AN ANSWER addressing the merits of the Second Amended Petition. Respondent 

SHALL INCLUDE with the Answer any and all transcripts or other documents 

necessary for the resolution of the issues presented in the Second Amended 

Petition. See Rule 5, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Any argument by 

Respondent that Petitioner has procedurally defaulted a claim SHALL BE MADE 

in the ANSWER, but must also address the merits of the claim asserted.

B. A MOTION TO DISMISS the Second Amended Petition. A Motion to Dismiss 

SHALL INCLUDE copies of all Petitioner’s state court filings and dispositive 

rulings. See Rule 5, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.4

 

1The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “apply to proceedings for habeas corpus ... to the extent that the practice in those 

proceedings (A) is not specified in a federal statute, the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, or the Rules Governing 

Section 2255 Cases; and (B) has previously conformed to the practice in civil actions.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 81(a)(4). Rule 12 

also provides “[t]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to the extent that they are not inconsistent with any statutory

provisions or these rules, may be applied to a proceeding under these rules.” Rule 12, Rules Governing Section 2254 

Cases. 

2

Respondent is advised that a scanned copy of the Second Amended Petition is available in the Court’s electronic case 

filing system (“CM/ECF”). 

3Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides that upon the Court’s determination that summary dismissal 

is inappropriate, the “judge must order the respondent to file an answer or other pleading...or to take other action the judge 

may order.” Rule 4, Rules Governing 2254 Cases (emphasis added); see also Advisory Committee Notes to Rules 4 and 5 

of Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (stating that a dismissal may obviate the need for filing an answer on the 

substantive merits of the petition and that the Attorney General may file a Motion to Dismiss for failure to exhaust); White 

v. Lewis, 874 F.2d 599, 602-603 (9th Cir. 1989)(providing that Motions to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 4 are proper in a 

federal habeas proceeding). 

Case 1:13-cv-00711-LJO-JLT Document 26 Filed 12/11/14 Page 5 of 6
6

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. If Respondent files an Answer to the Second Amended Petition, Petitioner MAY FILE 

a Traverse within 30 days of the date Respondent’s Answer is filed with the Court. If 

no Traverse is filed, the Second Amended Petition and Answer are deemed submitted at 

the expiration of the thirty days.

5. If Respondent files a Motion to Dismiss, Petitioner SHALL FILE an Opposition or 

Statement of Non-Opposition within 21 days of the date Respondent’s Motion is filed 

with the Court. If no Opposition is filed, the Motion to Dismiss is deemed submitted at 

the expiration of the thirty days. Any Reply to an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss 

SHALL be filed within 7 days after the Opposition is served.

6. Unless already submitted, both Respondent and Petitioner SHALL COMPLETE and 

RETURN to the Court within 30 days a Consent/Decline form indicating whether the 

party consents or declines to consent to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate 

Judge pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1).

7. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to SERVE a copy of this order on the Attorney 

General or his or her representative.

All motions shall be submitted on the record and briefs filed without oral argument unless 

otherwise ordered by the Court. Local Rule 230(l). Extensions of time will only be granted upon a 

showing of good cause. All provisions of Local Rule 110 are applicable to this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 10, 2014 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00711-LJO-JLT Document 26 Filed 12/11/14 Page 6 of 6