Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06233/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06233-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Derral G. Adams
Respondent
David Laron Tash
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

DAVID LARON TASH, )

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

DERRAL G. ADAMS, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

 )

CV F 02 6233 WMW HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION

TO FILE PROPOSED AMENDED PETITION

AS NEW CASE

[Doc. 48]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the parties have consented to

the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. 

On September 13, 2005, Petitioner filed a Motion to Amend Second Exhausted, Petition

to First Petition” and a “Motion to Clarify and Reconsider Motion to Stay and Amend Petition.” 

In these motions Petitioner sought to have the court reconsider its order of June 5, 2003, denying

Petitioner’s motion to stay his petition, and also sought to be allowed to amend his petition. 

On November 9, 2005, the court entered an order which provided in part as follows:

In its order of June 5, 2003, the court explained that the claims Petitioner seeks to

add to his present petition are barred by the statute of limitations and that Petitioner is not

entitled to equitable tolling. Nothing has occurred to change that fact. Accordingly,

there is no basis for the court to reconsider its prior order denying Petitioner’s earlier

Case 1:02-cv-06233-WMW Document 49 Filed 01/12/06 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

request for the court to stay his petition and allow him to amend it when he had

exhausted his state court remedies. There is similarly no legal basis for the court to now

allow Petitioner to amend his petition, as such amendment would be futile. 

In his motion to clarify, Petitioner inquires whether the Ninth Circuit’s dismissal

for lack of jurisdiction was due to the fact that a district judge had not ruled on

Petitioner’s motion. Petitioner is informed that this was not the basis of the Ninth

Circuit’s finding that it lacked jurisdiction. As stated above, both parties have consented

to having the magistrate judge hear all matters in this case. Thus, there is no longer a

district judge assigned to this case and the magistrate judge’s decisions are final.

Based on the foregoing, Petitioner’s motions are HEREBY DENIED.

On November 21, 2005, Petitioner filed a motion seeking to have his proposed amended

petition which was rejected by the court filed as a new case. As stated in the court’s prior order

quoted above, the additional claims Petitioner wishes to bring a barred by the statute of

limitations and Petitioner is not entitled to equitable tolling. Further, Petitioner cannot properly

bring a new case duplicating the claims in the present case. Therefore, if Petitioner filed the

proposed amended petition as a new case, the court would be obligated to immediately dismiss

that entire case. The court finds, therefore, that the filing of Petitioner’s proposed amended

complaint as a new case would be futile. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion is HEREBY

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 11, 2006 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06233-WMW Document 49 Filed 01/12/06 Page 2 of 2