Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00353/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00353-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Stanislaus County
Respondent
Justin Michael Thuemler
Petitioner

Document Text:

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Petitioner challenges a 2013 conviction in the Stanislaus County Superior Court and his 

resulting sentence of six years. However, the Court notes that Petitioner had filed a previous federal 

petition in this Court challenging the same conviction in case number 1:06-cv-00174-MJS. Thus, the 

Court construed the filing as a motion to amend the petition filed in the earlier case and orders this 

matter closed.

I. DISCUSSION

In Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886 (9th Cir. 2008), the Ninth Circuit held that, under certain 

circumstances, if a pro se petitioner files a habeas petition during the pendency of a previous petition, 

the district court should construe the second petition as a motion to amend the previous petition. 

Woods, 525 F.3d at 889-890. Hence, Woods appears to require a district court to construe a “second 

JUSTIN MICHAEL THUEMLER,

 Petitioner,

v.

STANISLAUS COUNTY,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00353-JLT

ORDER CONSTRUING PETITION AS MOTION 

TO AMEND PETITION IN CASE NO. 1:16-cv00175-MJS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO REFILE INSTANT PETITION AS MOTION TO 

AMEND IN CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00175-MJS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 

CLOSE THIS CASE

Case 1:16-cv-00353-JLT Document 7 Filed 03/23/16 Page 1 of 2
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

or successive” petition filed while an earlier petition is still pending in the district court as a motion to 

amend the earlier petition. 

Because Petitioner has a pending federal habeas petition in case number 1:16-cv-00175-MJS, 

which challenges the same conviction as in this case, the Court must construe this petition as a motion 

to amend the earlier-filed petition. Woods, at 889-890. Thus, the Court ORDERS:

1. The Court construes the petition (Doc. 1), as a motion to amend the petition in case 

number 1:16-cv-00175-MJS;

2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to docket the petition in this case as a motion to 

amend in case number 1:16-cv-00175-MJS;

3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 23, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00353-JLT Document 7 Filed 03/23/16 Page 2 of 2