Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00175/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00175-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Stanislaus County
Respondent
Justin Michael Thuemler
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUSTIN MICHAEL THUEMLER,

Petitioner,

v.

STANISLAUS COUNTY,

Respondent.

1:16-cv-00175 MJS HC

ORDER REQUIRING PETITIONER TO 

ELECT TO PROCEED WITH THE FIRST 

AMENDED PETITION OR FILE A SECOND 

AMENDED PETITION

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

ORDER VACATING ORDER DIRECTING 

RESPONDENT TO FILE A RESPONSE

(Docs. 6, 11)

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On February 1, 2016, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus with this 

Court. (ECF No. 1.) The Court reviewed the petition and, on February 8, 2016, directed 

Respondent to file a response to the petition within sixty (60) days. (ECF No. 6.)

On March 3, 2016, Petitioner filed a second petition for writ of habeas corpus in 

the Central District of California. On March 15, 2016, the case was transferred to this 

district and opened as a new petition for writ of habeas corpus. (See E.D.Cal. Case No. 

1:16-cv-00175 MJS HC, ECF Nos. 3-4.) On determining that Petitioner’s earlier filed 

petition for writ of habeas corpus was pending with the Court, the Court construed the 

Case 1:16-cv-00175-MJS Document 15 Filed 04/26/16 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

new petition as a motion to amend and it closed the later, Central District, action. See

Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886 (9th Cir. 2008). 

It is unclear whether Petitioner desires to proceed on the claims presented in the 

more recently filed action. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS Petitioner to advise 

the Court in writing whether he wants to proceed with the more recently filed petition or if 

he wants to file a Second Amended Petition. He must so notify the Court within thirty 

(30) days of the date of service of this order. 

Petitioner is forewarned that 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(c). 

In addition, 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 2255 Cases; see also Hendricks v. 

Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir. 1990).

Petitioner is advised that an amended petition supercedes the 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. Accordingly, Petitioner's last filed amended 

petition must contain all the claims Petitioner wishes to present before the Court. Plaintiff 

is warned that "[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 Court will grant Petitioner 

leave to determine the pleadings and exhibits he wishes to include in the instant petition. 

Case 1:16-cv-00175-MJS Document 15 Filed 04/26/16 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

 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner is GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date of service of this 

Order to EITHER: 1) provide notice to the Court that he is electing to proceed with the 

First Amended Petition (i.e. the petition originally filed in the Central District of 

California); or 2) submit a SECOND AMENDED PETITION. Any such 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 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; and

4. The order directing Respondent to file a response to the petition is hereby 

WITHDRAWN. (Doc. 6.) Upon determining which petition is the operative petition in this 

case, the Court will screen the petition, and direct Respondent to file a response, if 

necessary. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 25, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00175-MJS Document 15 Filed 04/26/16 Page 3 of 3