Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01020/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01020-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Patrick Jones
Petitioner
Warden of USP Atwater
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

PATRICK JONES,

Petitioner,

v.

WARDEN of USP ATWATER,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01020-AWI-SAB-HC

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO 

AMEND NOTICE OF APPEAL

(ECF No. 26)

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On September 30, 2015, the Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s 

findings and recommendation and dismissed the petition. (ECF No. 16). On January 21, 2016, 

the Court denied Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 19). 

On March 18, 2016, the Court received Petitioner’s motion seeking authorization to 

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. (ECF No. 20). As the Court had previously permitted 

Petitioner to proceed in forma pauperis in this matter, Petitioner did not require further 

authorization and the Court construed the motion as a notice of appeal. (ECF No. 21). On March 

23, 2016, the appeal was processed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (ECF No. 23).

On March 31, 2016, the Court received the instant motion wherein Petitioner seeks leave 

to amend the notice of appeal he previously submitted1in order to list the correct case number. 

 

1

In addition to the motion to appeal in forma pauperis, Petitioner submitted a separate notice of appeal, which the 

Court returned to Petitioner without docketing because it listed an incorrect case number. (ECF No. 26 at 4–6).

Case 1:15-cv-01020-AWI-SAB Document 27 Filed 04/08/16 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

(ECF No. 26). The Court finds the instant motion to be moot. The Court previously construed 

Petitioner’s motion to appeal in forma pauperis, which listed the correct case number, as a notice 

of appeal and processed the appeal to the Ninth Circuit. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion to amend the notice of 

appeal (ECF No. 26) is DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 7, 2016 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01020-AWI-SAB Document 27 Filed 04/08/16 Page 2 of 2