Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-01877/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-01877-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Miguel A. Cisneros
Petitioner
Jim Robertson
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

MIGUEL A. CISNEROS,

Petitioner,

v.

JIM ROBERTSON, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 18-cv-01877-HSG (PR) 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

AMEND; DIRECTING PETITIONER 

TO FILE SECOND AMENDED 

PETITION

Re: Dkt. No. 25

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison, filed this pro se action seeking a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On July 3, 2018, the Court found that the petition 

stated three cognizable claims and directed respondent to show cause why the petition should not 

be granted. 

On July 6, 2018, petitioner filed a second action for writ of habeas corpus, Cisneros v. 

California, Case No. 18-cv-4049 HSG. As required by Ninth Circuit precedent, see Woods v. 

Carey, 525 F.3d 886, 889 (9th Cir. 2008), this Court construed the filing in Case No. 18-cv-4049 

to be a motion to amend the petition in the present action (i.e., in Case No. 18-cv-1877). This 

Court thus dismissed Case No. 18-cv-4049, and directed the Clerk to place a copy of the petition 

from Case No. 18-cv-4049 in the docket for Case No. 18-cv-1877, where it would be treated as a 

motion for leave to amend the petition in Case No. 18-cv-1877. This order grants the motion for 

leave to amend and sets a schedule for petitioner to file a second amended petition.

DISCUSSION

Transforming the petition from Case No. 18-cv-4049 into a motion to amend in Case No. 

18-cv-1877, as required to by Woods, leads to a rather confused state of the pleadings. This is so 

because the claims in the two actions are different and the general rule is that a later pleading 

Case 4:18-cv-01877-HSG Document 27 Filed 08/07/18 Page 1 of 3
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

supersedes an earlier pleading. Adding to the confusion is the fact that the three claims in 18-cv1877 appear to be variations of the same claim, i.e., that the trial court erred in admitting evidence 

of a prior uncharged act of robbery. The two claims in 18-cv-4049 also appear to repeat each 

other and are difficult to understand. Quite simply, the Court is uncertain as to exactly what 

claims for habeas relief petitioner wants to present to this Court. In order to clarify the situation, 

petitioner must file a second amended petition that contains all of the claims for habeas relief he 

wants to present to this Court. He will be able to prepare that second amended petition knowing 

that this is the one and only action in which he will be able to seek federal habeas relief and 

therefore his second amended petition must contain all of his claims. Once he files that second 

amended petition, the Court will review it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules 

Governing Section 2254 Cases.

Petitioner is advised that he must list his claims clearly and concisely on the court’s habeas

form or on a limited number of attached pages if more room is necessary. He must clearly number 

and label each claim as “Claim One”, “Claim Two,” etc., particularly if he includes claims on 

pages attached to the form petition. Each claim must concisely and clearly assert a separate 

violation of federal law, and include a brief explanation as to how the violation occurred. In the 

interest of clarity, it is recommended that petitioner provide his supporting facts and argument 

immediately after each claim rather than directing the reader to a separate document. Petitioner

may not include every argument or issue as a separate claim. Rather, each claim must identify 

what constitutional right was violated. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, petitioner’s motion for leave to amend is GRANTED. Within 

thirty-five (35) days of this order, petitioner must file a second amended petition containing all of 

the claims for habeas relief that he wants this Court to consider. Any claim not contained in that 

second amended petition will be deemed abandoned. 

The briefing schedule for respondent’s answer set forth in the Court’s July 3, 2018 order is 

VACATED. The Court will set a new briefing schedule after reviewing the second amended 

petition.

Case 4:18-cv-01877-HSG Document 27 Filed 08/07/18 Page 2 of 3
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

Petitioner is reminded that the Court’s July 3, 2018 order denied his application to proceed 

in forma pauperis and directed petitioner to pay the $5.00 filing fee by July 31, 2018. The Court 

sua sponte GRANTS petitioner an extension of time to August 31, 2018 to pay the $5.00 filing 

fee. The failure to pay the filing fee by the deadline will result in dismissal of this action 

without prejudice and without further notice to petitioner.

The Clerk of the Court shall send petitioner a blank habeas corpus form along with a copy 

of this order.

This order terminates Dkt. No. 25.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

8/7/2018

Case 4:18-cv-01877-HSG Document 27 Filed 08/07/18 Page 3 of 3