Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00614/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00614-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Richard Miguel Garcia
Petitioner
Stu Sherman
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD MIGUEL GARCIA,

Petitioner,

v.

STU SHERMAN, Warden,

Respondent.

1:16-cv-00614 MJS HC 

ODRDER CONSTRUING PETITION AS A 

MOTION TO AMEND IN A PREVIOUSLY 

FILED MATTER

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

I. BACKGROUND

On May 2, 2016, Petitioner filed the instant petition challenging his June 9, 2011

conviction from the Tulare County Superior Court of conspiracy to commit murder, 

second degree murder, and various enhancements. (Pet., ECF No. 1 at 76.) Petitioner 

was sentenced to an indeterminate life term of forty (40) years to life in state prison. (Id.

at 79.) In the present petition, Petitioner presents six separate grounds for relief. (Pet. at 

15-18.) 

Case 1:16-cv-00614-MJS Document 4 Filed 05/04/16 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

Petitioner titled the petition as an “Amended Petition” and attached a copy of an 

April 13, 2016 order of this Court dismissing his petition without prejudice, and directing 

Petitioner to file an amended petition within thirty (30) days. (Pet. at 87-88.) A search of 

the Court’s docket reveals that Petitioner had previously filed a petition challenging the 

same conviction. See Garcia v. Montgomery, E.D.Cal. Case No. 1:14-cv-00980-DADSMS. In that matter, which remains pending, the Court issued an order on April 13, 

2016, vacating a stay, dismissing the original petition without prejudice, and directing

Petitioner to file an amended petition within thirty (30) days. Construing Petitioner’s filing 

in a light most favorable to Petitioner, the Court will consider the instant petition to be an 

amended petition filed in the earlier action.

II. ANALYSIS

In Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886 (9th Cir. 2008), the Court held that a petition 

filed before a prior petition has been adjudicated should be considered a motion to 

amend the prior petition rather than a second or successive petition.

The instant petition was filed on May 2, 2016. Petitioner filed the earlier petition 

for writ of habeas corpus in this Court on June 23, 2014. See Garcia v. Montgomery, 

E.D.Cal. Case No. 1:14-cv-00980-DAD-SMS (ECF No. 1.). The Court granted a stay of 

the petition on August 28, 2014, and as previously mentioned vacated the stay and 

ordered an amended petition be filed on April 13, 2016. (Id., ECF Nos. 9, 21.) 

Because the petition filed in the instant case (1:16-cv-00614-MJS-HC) appears to 

be an amended petition relating to the prior case (1:14-cv-00980-DAD-SMS-HC), and 

the petition was filed while the earlier filed petition is still pending, it is appropriate to 

construe the document as amended petition in case number 1:14-cv-00980-DAD-SMSHC.

Therefore, it is ordered that the instant petition initially will be construed as an 

amended petition in case number 1:14-cv-00980-DAD-SMS-HC, and that the document 

be re-filed in that action.

///

Case 1:16-cv-00614-MJS Document 4 Filed 05/04/16 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

III. ORDER

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1) The Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to file the petition (ECF No. 1) as an 

amended petition in case no. 1:14-cv-00980-DAD-SMS-HC; and

2) The Clerk of Court be directed to close the current action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 4, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00614-MJS Document 4 Filed 05/04/16 Page 3 of 3