Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01179/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01179-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ronnie Manuel Arellano
Petitioner
James Walker
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONNIE MANUEL ARELLANO, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF )

CALIFORNIA, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-CV-01179-AWI-TAG HC

ORDER WITHDRAWING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS ISSUED ON

DECEMBER 13, 2007 (Doc. 8)

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S

MOTION TO WITHDRAW UNEXHAUSTED

CLAIMS (Doc. 10)

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S

MOTION TO NAME PROPER

RESPONDENT (Doc. 9)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO SUBSTITUTE THE NAME OF JAMES

WALKER AS RESPONDENT

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S

MOTION TO AMEND (Doc. 13)

ORDER DIRECTING THAT AMENDED

PETITION BE FILED WITHIN THIRTY

DAYS

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

BACKGROUND

Petitioner is currently in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation pursuant to a January 13, 2005 judgment of conviction by the Superior Court of

California, County of Fresno (Doc. 1, p. 1). 

///

Case 1:06-cv-01179-AWI-TAG Document 14 Filed 03/17/08 Page 1 of 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

On August 31, 2006, Petitioner filed the instant federal petition. (Id.). In that petition,

Petitioner alleges that he raised the following issues in his direct appeal of the conviction: (1)

ineffective assistance of trial counsel in (a) failing to impeach a key witness concerning two prior

convictions, and (b) failing to move to strike non-responsive testimony by a witness; and (2) the jury

was improperly instructed with CALJIC No. 2.06. (Doc. 1, p. 3a). Petitioner has indicated that he

did not file any other appeals or petitions for writ of habeas corpus in the California courts. (Doc. 1,

p. 3). 

In the instant petition, Petitioner raises four issues: (1) insufficient evidence to support the

conviction; (2) “identification,” in which Petitioner contends that the perpetrator had different tattoos

than Petitioner; (3) ineffective assistance of trial counsel in failing to move to strike a non-responsive

and false answer by a witness; and (4) the fact of a witness’s recantation of prior statements and trial

testimony. (Doc. 1, pp. 5-6). 

On December 13, 2008, the Court filed Findings and Recommendations that the petition be

dismissed as a mixed petition containing exhausted and unexhausted claims. (Doc. 8). In the 

Findings and Recommendations, the Court gave Petitioner the option of either doing nothing and

having the Findings and Recommendations submitted to the District Judge for consideration, or

filing a motion to withdraw the unexhausted claims and proceed on the exhausted petition. The

Findings and Recommendations also indicated that Petitioner would need to amend the caption to

name the proper respondent. 

On January 2, 2008, Petitioner filed a motion to withdraw his unexhausted claims. (Doc. 10). 

On that same date, Petitioner also filed a motion to amend the caption to name the proper

respondent, i.e., James Walker, Warden. (Doc. 9). On February 29, 2008, Petitioner filed a motion

to amend the petition to include the additional grounds for ineffective assistance of trial counsel for

failure to impeach a key witness with two prior convictions, grounds previously exhausted by

Petitioner in state court. (Doc. 13). 

DISCUSSION

The Findings and Recommendations filed on December 13, 2007, expressly permitted

Petitioner to avoid dismissal of the petition by filing motions to withdraw the unexhausted claims

Case 1:06-cv-01179-AWI-TAG Document 14 Filed 03/17/08 Page 2 of 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 3

and to amend the caption to name the proper respondent. Petitioner has complied with both of the

requirements by the motions he filed on January 2, 2008. Accordingly, the Court will order the

Findings and Recommendations filed on December 13, 2007 to be withdrawn. The Court will also

direct the Clerk of the Court to substitute the name of James Walker, as the Respondent in this case,

deleting “The People of the State of California” as Respondent.

Regarding Petitioner’s motion to add claims, a petitioner may amend a petition for writ of

habeas corpus once “as a matter of course,” and without leave of Court, before a response has been

filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), as applied to habeas corpus actions pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2242 and Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Calderon v. United States

District Court (Thomas), 144 F.3d 618, 620 (9th Cir. 1998); Bonn v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th

Cir. 1995). Leave of Court is required for all other amendments. Rule Civ. P. 15(a). 

Here, since no response has been filed, Petitioner’s motion to amend is proper. Accordingly,

the Court will grant Petitioner leave to amend his petition to include the ineffective assistance of

counsel issues mentioned in his motion to amend filed on January 2, 2008. Petitioner will be granted

thirty days from the date of service of this order within which to file his amended petition. 

ORDER

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed on December 13, 2007 (Doc. 8), are

WITHDRAWN; 

2. Petitioner’s motion to withdrawn unexhausted claims (Doc. 10), is GRANTED. 

Grounds One, Two, and Four in the original petition (Doc. 1), are deemed withdrawn;

3. Petitioner’s motion to name a proper respondent (Doc. 9), is GRANTED;

4. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to substitute as named Respondent the name of

“James Walker, Warden,” and to delete as named Respondent “The People of the

State of California;”

5. Petitioner’s motion to amend the petition (Doc. 13), is GRANTED. Petitioner is

granted thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order to file an amended

petition. In that amended petition, Petitioner should include Ground Three in his

Case 1:06-cv-01179-AWI-TAG Document 14 Filed 03/17/08 Page 3 of 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 4

original petition along with the two additional bases for ineffective assistance of trial

counsel identified in his motion to amend filed on January 2, 2008. Petitioner is

advised that the amended petition should be clearly entitled “Amended Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus.” If Petitioner chooses to include additional claims beyond

those already mentioned in this order, Petitioner is advised that the petition must set

forth his claim(s), including all the facts and arguments in support of said claim(s). 

With respect to any claims raised in an amended petition, Petitioner must have

presented those claims, either in his original state court appeal or through a

subsequent state habeas corpus petition, to the California Supreme Court prior to

raising them in this Court. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to advise the Court in his

amended petition of the dates when the state courts ruled on the issues Petitioner

raised. The Court will not consider the original petition. 

Petitioner is forewarned that failure to follow this order will result in a recommendation that

the petition be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 11-110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 14, 2008 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-01179-AWI-TAG Document 14 Filed 03/17/08 Page 4 of 4