Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01283/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01283-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ricky Edward King
Petitioner
R. Rackley
Respondent

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICKY EDWARD KING,

Petitioner,

v.

R. RACKLEY,

Respondent.

No. 2:15-cv-1331 TLN KJN P

RICKY EDWARD KING,

Petitioner,

v.

R. RACKLEY,

Respondent.

No. 2:16-cv-1283 TLN KJN P

ORDER

Petitioner is a former state prisoner, proceeding without counsel. In Case No. 2:15-cv1331 TLN KJN, petitioner challenges his conviction for first degree burglary; he was sentenced 

on January 12, 2013, to a determinate state prison term of five years. On April 1, 2016, the 

undersigned recommended that respondent’s motion to dismiss be granted as barred by the statute 

of limitations. Petitioner filed objections. Id.

////

Case 2:16-cv-01283-TLN-KJN Document 8 Filed 08/19/16 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

On June 10, 2016, petitioner filed a second petition for writ of habeas corpus in which he 

alleges that his 2013 sentence was enhanced under California Penal Code § 667.5b because 

petitioner had a prior felony conviction in which he served time in prison. He contends that in 

2014, under California Penal Code § 1170.18, his prison prior was reduced to a misdemeanor; 

thus, petitioner contends he is being unlawfully held. Case No. 2:16-cv-1283 TLN KJN. 

It is established that if a new habeas petition is filed when a previous habeas petition is 

still pending before the district court without a decision having been rendered, then the new 

petition should be construed as a motion to amend the pending petition. Woods v. Carey, 525 

F.3d 886, 888 (9th Cir. 2008).

Here, petitioner’s first habeas petition is pending, and he has not previously amended the 

petition in 2:15-cv-1331 TLN KJN. However, Local Rule 220 provides that “every pleading to 

which an amendment or supplement is permitted as a matter of right or has been allowed by court 

order shall be retyped and filed so that it is complete in itself without reference to the prior or 

superseded pleading.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 220 (Changed Pleadings). No pleading shall be deemed 

amended or supplemented until this Rule has been complied with, and all changed pleadings shall 

contain copies of all exhibits referred to in the changed pleading. Id. Therefore, petitioner is 

directed to file an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus in the instant action, taking care to 

include the claims raised in his original habeas petition, as well as his new claims raised in the 

habeas petition filed in 2:16-cv-1283 TLN KJN, conforming his second § 2254 petition to the 

requirements of Local Rule 220.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed in Case No. 2:16-cv-1283 

TLN KJN is construed as a motion to amend the pending habeas petition in the Case No. 2:15-cv1331 TLN KJN. So construed, petitioner is granted 14 days to re-file an amended petition that 

includes all of the § 2254 claims he intends to raise in one habeas action, 2:15-cv-1331 TLN KJN. 

Respondent shall file a response to the motion to amend within 45 days from the date of this order 

or from the date petitioner files the amended petition.

Dated: August 19, 2016

/king1331.amd

Case 2:16-cv-01283-TLN-KJN Document 8 Filed 08/19/16 Page 2 of 2