Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01906/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01906-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mike Martel
Respondent
Ricardo Gil Ramirez
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICARDO GIL RAMIREZ,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-10-1390 GGH P

vs.

MIKE MARTEL, Warden, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with an application to proceed in forma

pauperis.

Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable

to afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be

granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Petitioner is attempting to proceed in this single petition to challenge both the

fourth denial of parole by the Board of Parole Hearings in 2007 and the fifth denial in 2008. See

Petition, p. 2. His rationale for this approach is that, although he filed a separate petition

challenging each in state superior court, the petitions were consolidated in the state court of

appeal and denied, thereafter proceeding to the state supreme court in that manner where the

petition was summarily denied. Id. 

Case 2:10-cv-01906-FCD-GGH Document 3 Filed 07/20/10 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

 “A petitioner who seeks relief from judgments of more than one state court must file a 1

separate petitioner covering the judgment or judgments of each court.”

2

Notwithstanding, petitioner may not proceed in a single federal habeas petition to

challenge both parole denials. See Fed. Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, Rule 2(e); see 1

also, Magwood v. Patterson, __ S. Ct. ___, 2010 WL 2518374 *9, n. 9 (June 24, 2010); 

Mansanares v. Arpaio, 2009 WL 1456858 *1 n. 1 (D. Ariz. May 21, 2009). Although the state

appellate and supreme courts may have consolidated and considered the parole denial decisions

together does not abrogate the fact that each parole denial constitutes a separate decision that may

implicate different circumstances. This petition will be dismissed with leave granted to file an

amended petition challenging only the 2007 parole denial. The Clerk of the Court will be

directed to open a separate case wherein this order is also filed and within which petitioner will

be granted leave to file an amended petition challenging the separate 2008 parole decision

denying his suitability for parole. The cases will be assigned to the same district judge and

magistrate judge as assigned herein.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s June 7, 2010, application to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket

No. 2) is granted; 

2. The petition is dismissed in the instant case with leave granted, within twentyeight days, for petitioner to file an amended petition challenging only the 2007 parole denial;

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to:

a. Open an additional and separate 28 U.S.C. § 2254 action for petitioner;

 b. Assign the same district judge and magistrate judge to whom the instant

case is assigned and make appropriate adjustment in the assignment of §

2254 cases to compensate for such assignment;

 c. File and docket a copy of this order in the new separate habeas action;

 d. Place copy of the petition and application to proceed in forma pauperis

Case 2:10-cv-01906-FCD-GGH Document 3 Filed 07/20/10 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

3

by a prisoner, filed on June 7, 2010, and a copy of this order in the

additional separate file opened for this petitioner; 

 e. Send petitioner a copy of this order both in this case and in the newly

opened case; 

4. The petition in the newly opened case is also dismissed and petitioner is

granted twenty-eight days from the filing of this order in the new habeas action to file an

amended petition challenging only his 2008 parole decision denial.

5. Failure to file an amended petition in each or both cases will result in a

recommendation that one or both petitions be dismissed.

DATED: July 20, 2010 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

rami1390.ord

Case 2:10-cv-01906-FCD-GGH Document 3 Filed 07/20/10 Page 3 of 3