Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01218/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01218-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
K. Holland
Respondent
Ermilio Rodriguez Morales
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERMILIO RODRIGUEZ MORALES,

Petitioner,

v.

K. HOLLAND, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01218-AWI-GSA-HC

ORDER DIRECTING PETITIONER TO 

FILE A STATEMENT SIGNED UNDER 

PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT HE 

SUBMITTED THE INSTANT PETITION

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING PETITION

Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254. 

On July 6, 2015, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court. This 

petition has been assigned case number 1:15-cv-01013-JLT-HC. On July 9, 2015, Petitioner was 

ordered to file a motion to amend the petition to name a proper respondent within thirty (30) 

days. On August 6, 2015, Petitioner filed a duplicate of the first federal petition for writ of 

habeas corpus in this Court, except this Petition listed the Warden as K. Holland. This petition 

has been assigned case number 1:15-cv-01218-AWI-GSA HC.

DISCUSSION

A plaintiff is required to bring at one time all of the claims against a party or privies 

relating to the same transaction or event. Adams v. California Dept. of Health Services, 487 

Case 1:15-cv-01218-AWI-GSA Document 5 Filed 08/12/15 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

F.3d 684, 693 (9th Cir. 2007). “After weighing the equities of the case, the district court may 

exercise its discretion to dismiss a duplicative later-filed action, to stay that action pending 

resolution of the previously filed action, to enjoin the parties from proceeding with it, or to 

consolidate both actions.” Adams, 487 F.3d at 688. “Plaintiffs generally have ‘no right to 

maintain two separate actions involving the same subject matter at the same time in the same 

court and against the same defendant.’” Adams, 487 F.3d at 688 (quoting Walton v. Eaton Corp., 

563 F.2d 66, 70 (3d Cir. 1977) (en banc)). 

Normally, “where a new pro se petition is filed before the adjudication of a prior petition 

is complete, the new petition should be construed as a motion to amend the pending petition 

rather than as a successive application.” Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886, 888-890 (9th Cir. 

2008). But where the claims have already be denied in the previously-filed action, the new 

petition is construed as a second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). Beaty v. 

Schriro, 554 F.3d 780, 782-83 (9th Cir. 2009).

In this case, the petition filed in Case No. 1:15-cv-01013-JLT-HC had not been 

adjudicated when Petitioner commenced his second action. Therefore, the Court must consider 

the petition filed in Case No. 1:15-cv01218-AWI-GSA-HC as a motion to amend the previouslyfiled petition. 

Upon review of the petition, the Court discovered that the petition does not contain an 

original signature. Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 131 of the Local 

Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California, require a 

document submitted to the Court for filing to include an original signature. If Petitioner would 

like to proceed with this petition that the Court is construing as a motion to amend the pending 

petition in the first application, he is directed to submit a document stating that he submitted the 

instant motion to amend the pending petition and he must sign it under penalty of perjury. 

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner is DIRECTED to file a 

statement signed under penalty of perjury that he submitted the instant petition within fourteen 

Case 1:15-cv-01218-AWI-GSA Document 5 Filed 08/12/15 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

(14) days of the date of service of this Order. 

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that:

1. The Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to FILE the Petition (ECF No. 1) from Case No. 

1:15-cv-01218-AWI-GSA-HC in Case No. 1:15-cv-01013-JLT-HC as a Motion to 

Amend; and

2. The Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE Case No. 

1:15-cv-01218-AWI-GSA-HC.

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District 

Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 

Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 

fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy, Petitioner may file written objections with the 

Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendation.” The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 

time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 

834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 11, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01218-AWI-GSA Document 5 Filed 08/12/15 Page 3 of 3