Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01158/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01158-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Terrance Brownlee
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRANCE BROWNLEE

Petitioner,

v.

RONALD RACKLEY,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01158-LJO-SAB-HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF 

HABEAS CORPUS

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

I.

BACKGROUND

On May 21, 2014, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Sacramento 

Division of this District. On December 12, 2014, the petition was transferred to the Fresno 

Division. The case was assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-01990-LJO-SAB-HC. The petition 

challenges Petitioner’s 2010 conviction for murder and robbery sustained in Fresno County 

Superior Court. On June 19, 2015, the Court issued a findings and recommendation 

recommending that the petition be dismissed as successive. On July 9, 2015, Petitioner filed 

objections to the findings and recommendation, a motion to appoint counsel, affidavit, 

declaration, and request for judicial notice. On July 20, 2015, Petitioner filed a motion in 

Case 1:15-cv-01158-LJO-SAB Document 9 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

support of matters before this Court. 

On July 27, 2015, Petitioner filed another petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court. 

The case was assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01158-LJO-SAB-HC. The petition also challenges 

Petitioner’s 1980 conviction out of Fresno County Superior Court. 

II.

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 

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. 

“[W]here 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). In 

this case, the petition filed in Case No. 1:14-cv-01990-LJO-SAB-HC had not been adjudicated 

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

filed in Case No. 1:15-cv-01158-SAB-HC as a motion to amend the previously-filed petition. 

III.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the Clerk of Court be DIRECTED 

to file the petition (ECF No. 1) from Case No. 1:15-cv-01158-LJO-SAB-HC in Case No. 1:14-

cv-01990-LJO-SAB-HC as a motion to amend and the Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to 

ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE Case No. 1:15-cv-01158-SAB-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 

Case 1:15-cv-01158-LJO-SAB Document 9 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

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

fourteen (14) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The assigned United States 

District Court Judge 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 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01158-LJO-SAB Document 9 Filed 08/12/15 Page 3 of 3