Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-04222/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-04222-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carlos C. Housh
Petitioner
Ronald Rackley
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLOS C. HOUSH,

Plaintiff,

v.

RONALD RACKLEY,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-04222-HSG 

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 

TRANSCRIPTS; GRANTING 

REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE 

AMENDED PETITION

Re: Dkt. Nos. 52, 55

Petitioner, a pro se prisoner, filed this action for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254. Now pending before the Court are petitioner’s “Motion to Object re: Dkt. 48”, 

Dkt. No. 52, and petitioner’s request that the Court consider a claim that the CDCR has incorrectly 

calculated his sentence by failing to take into account Propositions 36 and 47, Dkt. No. 55. 

BACKGROUND

The petition alleges the following claims for federal habeas relief: the trial court erred in 

denying petitioner’s Batson/Wheeler motion; the trial court erred in excluding Dr. Moskowitz’s 

December 2008 psychiatric report; petitioner was prejudiced by the victim’s references to his 

custodial status and prior imprisonment; the trial court erred in admitting evidence of prior 

domestic violence; the trial court erred in allowing his Montana prior conviction to qualify as a 

strike; the trial court violated Cal. Penal Code § 654 when it imposed consecutive sentences; the 

trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence; 

cumulative error; and sentencing error on the basis of a false conviction. Dkt. No. 1. 

On May 9, 2019, respondent filed an answer, along with a reporter’s transcript of the 

underlying state trial proceedings, with the exception of a sealed transcript of a confidential 

Marsden hearing held on January 5, 2012. Dkt. Nos. 40–43; Dkt. No. 46 at 1. 

Case 4:17-cv-04222-HSG Document 56 Filed 01/02/20 Page 1 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

DISCUSSION

I. Request for Transcripts

Petitioner has filed a “Motion to Object re Dkt. 48,” stating that he has not received the 

transcripts ordered, specifically the sealed transcripts for the January 5, 2012 Marsden hearing. 

Dkt. No. 52. Petitioner argues that the January 5, 2012 hearing would prove that the trial judge 

was objectively unreasonable in denying his request for a change of venue due to racial 

discrimination.1 Docket No. 48 is the Court’s June 28, 2019 order denying petitioner’s request 

that the Court amend its March 11, 2019 Order (Dkt. No. 38) to require that either the Court or 

respondent supplement the record with transcriptions of certain exchanges between the trial judge 

and jurors that he alleged were not transcribed. Dkt. No. 44. In its June 28, 2019 order, the Court 

denied the request because it found that there was nothing in the record, outside of petitioner’s 

allegation, that supported a finding that certain portions of the court reporter’s notes were not 

transcribed and that, in the event that the court reporter did not record these exchanges, 

transcription would not be possible. Dkt. No. 48. 

To the extent that petitioner is seeking reconsideration of the Court’s June 28, 2019 Order, 

the Court DENIES plaintiff leave to file a motion for reconsideration. No pre-judgment motion 

for reconsideration under Local Rule 7-9 may be brought without leave of court. See N.D. Cal. 

Civil L.R. 7-9(a). The moving party must specifically show: (1) that at the time of the motion for 

leave, a material difference in fact or law exists from that which was presented to the court before 

entry of the interlocutory order for which the reconsideration is sought, and that in the exercise of 

reasonable diligence the party applying for reconsideration did not know such fact or law at the 

time of the interlocutory order; or (2) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law 

occurring after the time of such order; or (3) a manifest failure by the court to consider material 

facts which were presented to the court before such interlocutory order. See N.D. Cal. Civil L.R. 

7-9(b). Petitioner has not addressed any of these factors, and his repeated conclusory allegations 

that the respondent is withholding the transcription of such exchanges are not a basis for granting 

 

1

In essence, petitioner’s allegation is that certain exchanges took place that demonstrate the 

judge’s racial bias, and that respondent is withholding the transcription of such exchanges.

Case 4:17-cv-04222-HSG Document 56 Filed 01/02/20 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

reconsideration of the Court’s June 28, 2019 order. 

To the extent that petitioner is requesting the transcript of the January 5, 2012 Marsden

hearing, this request is DENIED. The habeas petition does not contain claims relying on the 

Marsden hearing, does not contain a challenge to the trial court’s denial of a change of venue, and 

does not allege judicial bias.2 The transcript of the January 5, 2012 Marsden hearing is unrelated 

to the claims raised in the instant action. 

II. Request for Leave to Amend Petition

Petitioner has requested that the Court consider his claim that the CDCR has incorrectly 

calculated his sentence by failing to take into account Propositions 36 and 47.3 The Court 

construes this request as a request for leave to amend the petition. Piecemeal amendment of a 

petition by filing separate pleadings raising separate claims is not appropriate. However, the Court 

will GRANT petitioner leave to amend his petition to raise this claim. If petitioner wishes to raise 

this claim, he must file an amended petition that raises both this claim and the claims already 

raised. Amendment of a petition constitutes waiver of any omitted arguments or claims from 

previous versions of the petition. See Sechrest v. Ignacio, 549 F.3d 789, 804 (9th Cir. 2008)

(filing of new petition cancels out and waives any claims from old petition). If petitioner chooses 

to file an amended petition, the answer filed by respondent and the traverse filed by petitioner will 

be rendered moot. Within twenty-eight (28) days from the date of this order, petitioner shall file 

an amended petition. If petitioner fails to file an amended petition by this date, this action will 

proceed on the original petition (Dkt. No. 1).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, petitioner’s request for reconsideration of the Court’s June 28, 

 

2 To the extent that petitioner is claiming that the judge sealed the Marsden hearing to cover up his 

racial bias, the Court notes that in 2012, when the Marsden hearing was held, Cal. R. Ct. 8.328(b) 

required that the reporter’s transcript of Marsden hearings be kept confidential. Cal. R. Ct. 

8.328(b) (2012).

3

It is unclear if petitioner has exhausted this claim. Prisoners in state custody who wish to 

challenge collaterally in federal habeas proceedings either the fact or length of their confinement 

are first required to exhaust state judicial remedies, either on direct appeal or through collateral 

proceedings, by presenting the highest state court available with a fair opportunity to rule on the 

merits of each and every claim they seek to raise in federal court, even if review is discretionary. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). 

Case 4:17-cv-04222-HSG Document 56 Filed 01/02/20 Page 3 of 4
4

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

Northern District of California

2019 order is DENIED (Dkt. No. 52), petitioner’s request for the January 5, 2012 Marsden

hearing is DENIED (Dkt. No. 52), and petitioner’s request for leave to amend his petition is 

GRANTED (Dkt. No. 55). Within twenty-eight (28) days from the date of this order, petitioner 

shall file an amended petition. If petitioner fails to file an amended petition by this date, this 

action will proceed on the original petition (Dkt. No. 1). The Clerk shall send petitioner two 

copies of the court’s form habeas petition.

This order terminates Dkt. Nos. 52 and 55.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 1/2/2020

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:17-cv-04222-HSG Document 56 Filed 01/02/20 Page 4 of 4