Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00895/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00895-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eric Arnold
Respondent
Gerald W. Hurt
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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERALD W. HURT,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC ARNOLD,

Respondent.

No. 2:15-cv-0895 DAD P

ORDER

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

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On June 1, 2015, the court entered a screening order pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), in which it found the following:

In the section of his petition labeled “Grounds for Relief,” the 

petitioner states only that “the [California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and the Board of Parole 

Hearings (BPH)] failed to calculate my term according to the 

determinate sentencing law adopted in 1977.” (Petition (ECF No. 

1) at 6.) Petitioner does not say what the current, allegedly 

incorrect calculation of his sentence is, nor does he clarify what the 

correct calculation of his sentence would be. The petition before 

the court therefore does not contain a statement of facts detailed 

enough to inform the court or the potential respondent of the 

specific habeas relief that the petitioner seeks. The undersigned 

will, however, grant petitioner leave to file an amended petition to 

cure these pleading deficiencies – that is, to file an amended 

petition that states the specific habeas relief that petitioner seeks 

and the specific legal and factual grounds that warrant that relief. 

/////

Case 2:15-cv-00895-KJM-DB Document 13 Filed 08/18/15 Page 1 of 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

2

(Screening Order (ECF No. 11) at 2.)

Rather than file an amended petition as allowed in the screening order, petitioner has filed 

a statement of objections to the screening order. (See ECF No. 12.) While that statement 

reiterates petitioner’s position that his sentence has not been properly calculated by the sentencing 

court, CDCR or BPH, it still “does not does not say what the current, allegedly incorrect

calculation of his sentence is, nor does he clarify what the correct calculation of his sentence 

would be.” It remains the case, therefore, that this court is without “a statement of facts detailed 

enough to inform the court or the potential respondent of the specific habeas relief that the 

petitioner seeks.” (Screening Order at 2.)

Petitioner will be given a final chance to file an amended federal habeas petition to correct 

the noted deficiency. He must label it “First Amended Petition,” and, to pass the screening 

standards already explained to petitioner in the court’s previous order, it must state the specific 

habeas relief that petitioner seeks and the specific legal and factual grounds that warrant that 

relief. Petitioner is again admonished that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to 

make plaintiff’s amended application for habeas relief complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an 

amended petition be complete in itself, without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, 

as a general rule, an amended petition supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 

F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once a party files an amended petition, the original petition no 

longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended petition, as in the original, each 

claim for habeas relief must be sufficiently alleged.

Finally, petitioner is informed that failure to file an amended petition will result in an 

order that this action be dismissed.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner has thirty days from the date of this order in which to file an amended 

petition for writ of habeas corpus.

2. Any amended petition must bear the case number assigned to this action and the title 

“First Amended Petition.”

////

Case 2:15-cv-00895-KJM-DB Document 13 Filed 08/18/15 Page 2 of 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

3

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send petitioner the court’s form for application 

for writ of habeas corpus. 

Dated: August 17, 2015

hm

hurt0895.order

 

 

Case 2:15-cv-00895-KJM-DB Document 13 Filed 08/18/15 Page 3 of 3