Coleman v. People State of California

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 WENDELL COLEMAN, Case No. 21-cv-00049-HSG

8 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED 9 v. PETITION AS MOOT

10 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF Re: Dkt. No. 12 CALIFORNIA, et al., 11 Petitioner. 12

13 On or about January 5, 2021, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition 14 for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his December 18, 2020 conviction 15 in Napa County Superior Court of stalking (Cal. Penal Code § 646.9(b)); of online harassment 16 (Cal. Penal Code § 653.2), and of violating the terms of his probation (Cal. Penal Code § 1203.2)). 17 See Dkt. No. 1. On June 30, 2021, this Court granted Petitioner’s request to stay this action so that 18 he could exhaust his state court remedies, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). 19 On May 3, 2021, while this action was pending and prior to the Court’s staying this action, 20 Petitioner commenced a separate habeas proceeding in this court, C No. 21-cv-3298 HSG, which 21 also challenged the same conviction. See Coleman v. Calif., et al., C No. 21-cv-3298 HSG 22 (“Coleman II”), Dkt. No. 1 (May 3, 2021). Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886 887-90 (9th Cir. 2008) 23 provides that when a pro se petitioner files a new petition in the district court where an earlier- 24 filed petition is still pending, the district court must construe the new petition as a motion to 25 amend the petition in the initial habeas proceeding rather than as an unauthorized second or 26 successive petition. Accordingly, on February 23, 2002, the Coleman II Court directed the Clerk 27 to administratively close Coleman II and file the Coleman II petition in this action as a request for 1 leave to file an amended petition.! 2 This action has been stayed so that Petitioner may exhaust his state court remedies. Dkt. 3 No. 9. Accordingly, the request for leave to file an amended petition filed with the Court on May 4 3, 2021, but entered into the docket for this action on February 23, 2022, is DENIED as moot. 5 || Dkt. No. 12. 6 This case remains stayed and administratively closed. Petitioner is reminded that if he 7 || does not obtain relief from the California Supreme Court and wishes to proceed with this action, 8 || he must notify this Court within twenty-eight (28) days from the date of the California Supreme 9 || Court’s decision denying relief and file a motion to reopen this action that shows that he has 10 || exhausted state court remedies for the claims for federal habeas relief raised in this proceeding. 11 This order terminates Dkt. No. 12. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED.

13 || Dated: 2/28/2022 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. IS United States District Judge 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 07 ' Coleman I was initially dismissed on July 29, 2021 for failure to file an in forma pauperis application. Coleman IT, Dkt. Nos. 8, 9 (Jul. 29, 2021). Coleman IT was reopened on September 28 1, 2021. Petitioner paid the filing fee on September 10, 2021. Coleman I, Dkt. No. 17. The case was reassigned to the undersigned on January 25, 2022. Coleman IT, Dkt. No. 22 (Jan. 25, 2022).