Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01126/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01126-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Larry Ashley
Petitioner
Singh
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

LARRY ASHLEY,

Petitioner,

v.

SINGH,

Respondent.

No. 2:13-cv-1126 TLN AC

AMENDED ORDER

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On November 26, 2013, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 

which were served on all parties and which contained notice to petitioner that he may file a 

second amended petition or objections to the findings and recommendations within thirty days.

This court entered an order adopting the magistrate’s findings and recommendations along with

an accompanying final judgment order on February 21, 2014. ECF Nos. 23, 24. The final order 

erroneously stated that no second amended habeas corpus petition had been filed by petitioner. 

However, the record demonstrates that petitioner filed a second amended petition on January 13, 

2014. ECF No. 20. 

Pursuant to Rule 60(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court “may correct a 

Case 2:13-cv-01126-TLN-AC Document 25 Filed 02/24/14 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

clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a 

judgment, order, or other part of the record.” Id. In light of the second amended habeas corpus 

petition which respondent has answered, ECF No. 22, the court will set aside its previous order 

and judgment of February 21, 2014. 

Upon a renewed review of the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. In addition, the court has noted 

the parties subsequent filings. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The February 21, 2014 Order and Judgment (ECF Nos. 23, 24) are vacated;

2. The findings and recommendations filed November 26, 2013, are adopted in full;

3. Respondent’s motion to dismiss is granted (ECF No. 12);

4. Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed without prejudice for failing 

to exhaust state court remedies (ECF No. 1);

5. Petitioner’s first amended habeas corpus petition is dismissed without prejudice and 

with leave to amend for failing to state his claims of relief with sufficient specificity (ECF No. 

16); and, 

6. Petitioner shall file a reply to respondent’s answer within thirty days from the date of 

this order. 

Dated: February 24, 2014

Case 2:13-cv-01126-TLN-AC Document 25 Filed 02/24/14 Page 2 of 2