Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01214/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01214-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Connie Gipson
Respondent
James E. White
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES E. WHITE,

Plaintiff,

v.

CONNIE GIPSON, Warden,

Defendant.

1:14-cv-01214 LJO MJS HC

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER'S 

MOTIONS TO AMEND THE PETITION 

(Docs. 26-27)

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on August 4, 2014. 

(Pet., ECF No. 1.) On August 26, 2014, the Court granted Petitioner’s motion to stay the 

petition under Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2002). (Order, ECF No. 7.) Under 

the Kelly procedure, the Court allowed Petitioner to file an amended petition that did not 

include unexhausted claims. The Court then imposed a stay to allow Petitioner to 

exhaust the claims in state court. However, Petitioner was directed to file a motion to lift 

the stay within 30 days of the California Supreme Court issuing a final order resolving 

Petitioner's unexhausted claims. He was also directed to file an amended habeas 

petition containing all claims, including newly exhausted claims, with his motion to lift the 

stay. (Id.)

Case 1:14-cv-01214-LJO-MJS Document 28 Filed 05/17/16 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

2

Petitioner did not contact the Court upon exhausting his claims in state Court, and 

on January 19, 2016, the Court vacated the stay. (ECF No. 16.) On February 4, 2016, 

the Court ordered Respondent to file a response to the petition, which she did on March 

30, 2016. (Answer, ECF No. 21.)

On April 28, 2016, and again on May 10, 2016, Petitioner filed motions to amend 

the petition to include the claims that he attempted to exhaust in state court. Petitioner 

failed to file a motion to lift the stay and present the Court with an amended petition 

containing the newly exhausted claims. He now moves to amend the petition to add 

those claims. 

Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in relevant part:

(2) Other Amendments. In all other cases, a party may amend its 

pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's 

leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.

Petitioner has not sought consent from Respondent to file the motion to amend.

Accordingly, amendment may be permitted only upon court order. The standard for 

granting leave to amend is liberal, and leave should be freely given when justice so 

requires. Further, the Court has a "duty to ensure that pro se litigants do not lose their 

right to a hearing on the merits of their claim due to ignorance of technical procedural 

requirements." Chess v. Dovey, 790 F.3d 961, 971 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Balistreri v. 

Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990)). The procedural requirements 

for properly navigating a stay under the Kelly procedure are complex. While Petitioner 

should have notified the Court that his claims were exhausted, and filed an amended 

complaint containing the newly exhausted claims with the notice to lift the stay, Petitioner 

failed to do so. He now requests the opportunity to amend the petition three months after 

the Court vacated the stay. Respondent has filed an answer to the claims that were 

originally presented in the petition, and will be inconvenienced by having to now respond 

to review additional claims that Petitioner has allegedly exhausted. However, the 

additional effort does not rise to the level of prejudice to Respondent that would form the 

basis to deny leave to amend.

Case 1:14-cv-01214-LJO-MJS Document 28 Filed 05/17/16 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

3

Accordingly, Petitioner's motion to file an amended petition is GRANTED.

However, upon filing the amended petition, Respondent will have the opportunity to 

present procedural challenges to any newly added claims, including failure to exhaust 

state remedies or expiration of the one year limitations period, if applicable. Petitioner is 

also advised that to the extent that the new amended petition contains unexhausted 

claims, Petitioner must file a renewed motion to stay the petition and meet the 

procedural requirements of a stay to prevent dismissal of the unexhausted claims. 

The court hereby ORDERS Petitioner to file an Amended Petition within thirty (30) 

days of the date of service of this order. 

Petitioner is forewarned that Rule 2 of the "Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases" 

provides that the petition “... must specify all the grounds for relief available to the 

petitioner; state the facts supporting each ground; state the relief requested...” Rule 2 of 

the Rules Governing 2254 Cases. Rule 2 further provides that the petition “must 

substantially follow either the form appended to these rules or a form prescribed by a 

local district-court rule. The clerk must make forms available to petitioners without 

charge.” Id. at 2(c). 

In addition, Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to 

make a preliminary review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must 

dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly appears from the petition . . . that the petitioner is not 

entitled to relief." Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 2255 Cases; see also Hendricks v. 

Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir. 1990).

Petitioner is advised that an amended petition supercedes the original petition, 

Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 

565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), and must be "complete in itself without reference to the prior or 

superceded pleading." Local Rule 220. Accordingly, Petitioner's last filed amended 

petition must contain all the claims Petitioner wishes to present before the Court. Plaintiff 

is warned that "[a]ll causes of action alleged in an original complaint which are not 

alleged in an amended complaint are waived." King, 814 F.2d at 567 (citing to London v. 

Case 1:14-cv-01214-LJO-MJS Document 28 Filed 05/17/16 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

Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981)). The Court will grant Petitioner 

leave to determine the pleadings and exhibits he wishes to include in the instant petition. 

 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner is GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date of service of this 

Order to SUBMIT an AMENDED PETITION. The amended petition should be clearly 

and boldly titled “AMENDED PETITION,” contain the appropriate case number, and be 

an original signed under penalty of perjury; 

2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Petitioner a blank form petition 

for petitioners filing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254; and,

3. Petitioner is forewarned that his failure to comply with this order may result 

in a Recommendation that the petition be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 17, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01214-LJO-MJS Document 28 Filed 05/17/16 Page 4 of 4