Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01706/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01706-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Francisco Gil
Petitioner
James A. Yates
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANCISCO GIL,

Petitioner,

v.

JAMES A. YATES,

Respondent.

 /

1:09-cv-01706 MJS HC

ORDER REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS, GRANTING MOTION

TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION,

GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE SECOND

AMENDED PETITION AND DIRECTING

CLERK OF COURT TO SEND BLANK § 2254

FORM PETITION

[Docs. 1, 9]

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 September 28, 2009.

(Court Doc. 1.) On February 26, 2009, Petitioner filed an amended petition. (Court Doc. 9.) 

The Court will address both petitions in the instant order. 

DISCUSSION

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(d). 

///

Case 1:09-cv-01706-AWI-MJS Document 15 Filed 05/27/10 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

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 2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir. 1990).

From the initial petition, it appears that Petitioner is challenging a January 24, 2007,

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Rules Violation Report for

unauthorized possession of controlled medication. (Court Doc. 1, pp. 1, 4.) Petitioner contends

that he was improperly assessed with a 121 day credit forfeiture and that under prevailing law he

should not have been assessed with a credit forfeiture of more than 30 days. (Id.) This original

petition used a standard form as required by Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases.

Petitioner’s amended petition appears to raise exactly the same claim in the same way

but it does not use the standard form required for petitions for writs of habeas corpus. (Court

Doc. 9.)

Petitioner’s amended petition supercedes his 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. "[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. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d

811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981)). 

The amended petition omits significant pleadings and attachments associated with the

original petition. The court will grant Petitioner leave to determine the pleadings and attachments

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 a SECOND AMENDED PETITION. The amended petition should be

clearly and boldly titled “SECOND 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

Case 1:09-cv-01706-AWI-MJS Document 15 Filed 05/27/10 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

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 26, 2010 /s/ Michael J. Seng 

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-01706-AWI-MJS Document 15 Filed 05/27/10 Page 3 of 3