(HC)Ramirez v. The People of the State of California

E.D. California

(HC)Ramirez v. The People of the State of California

DecidedJuly 21, 2022

Docket1:22-cv-00295

StatusUnknown

This text of (HC)Ramirez v. The People of the State of California ((HC)Ramirez v. The People of the State of California) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

(HC)Ramirez v. The People of the State of California, (E.D. Cal. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ISAIAH B. RAMIREZ, Case No. 1:22-cv-00604-HBK (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER CONSTRUING PETITION AS MOTION TO AMEND PETITION IN CASE 13 v. NO. 1:22-cv-00295-HBK 14 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO CALIFORNIA, RE-FILE INSTANT PETITION AS MOTION 15 TO AMEND IN CASE NO. 1:22-cv-00295- Respondent. HBK 16 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 17 CLOSE THIS CASE 18 19 Petitioner Isaiah B. Ramirez, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this instant petition 20 for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on May 10, 2022. (Doc. No. 1). The Court 21 takes judicial notice of its own files which reveal that Petitioner has a previously filed federal 22 petition in this Court challenging the same conviction at case number 1:22-cv-00295-HBK. Thus, 23 the Court construes the filing as a motion to amend the petition filed in Petitioner’s earlier case 24 and orders this matter closed. 25 In Woods v. Carey, the Ninth Circuit held that, under certain circumstances, if a pro se 26 petitioner files a habeas petition during the pendency of a previous petition, the district court 27 should construe the second petition as a motion to amend the previous petition. 525 F.3d 886, 28 889-90 (9th Cir. 2008). Hence, Woods appears to require a district court to construe a “second or 1 | successive” petition filed while an earlier petition is still pending in the district court as a motion 2 | to amend the earlier petition. 3 Because Petitioner has a pending federal habeas petition in case number 1:22-cv-00295- 4 | HBK, which challenges the same conviction as in this case, the Court must construe this Petition 5 | as amotion to amend the earlier-filed petition. See id. at 889-90. 6 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 7 1. The Court construes the Petition (Doc. No. 1) as a motion to amend the Petition in 8 case number 1:22-cv-00295-HBK. 9 2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to docket the Petition in this case as a motion to 10 amend in case number 1:22-cv-00295-HBK. 11 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 12 'S | Dated: _ July 20, 2022 law Nh. fareh Base □□□ 14 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ISAIAH B. RAMIREZ, Case No. 1:22-cv-00604-HBK (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER CONSTRUING PETITION AS MOTION TO AMEND PETITION IN CASE 13 v. NO. 1:22-cv-00295-HBK 14 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO CALIFORNIA, RE-FILE INSTANT PETITION AS MOTION 15 TO AMEND IN CASE NO. 1:22-cv-00295- Respondent. HBK 16 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 17 CLOSE THIS CASE 18 19 Petitioner Isaiah B. Ramirez, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this instant petition 20 for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on May 10, 2022. (Doc. No. 1). The Court 21 takes judicial notice of its own files which reveal that Petitioner has a previously filed federal 22 petition in this Court challenging the same conviction at case number 1:22-cv-00295-HBK. Thus, 23 the Court construes the filing as a motion to amend the petition filed in Petitioner’s earlier case 24 and orders this matter closed. 25 In Woods v. Carey, the Ninth Circuit held that, under certain circumstances, if a pro se 26 petitioner files a habeas petition during the pendency of a previous petition, the district court 27 should construe the second petition as a motion to amend the previous petition. 525 F.3d 886, 28 889-90 (9th Cir. 2008). Hence, Woods appears to require a district court to construe a “second or 1 | successive” petition filed while an earlier petition is still pending in the district court as a motion 2 | to amend the earlier petition. 3 Because Petitioner has a pending federal habeas petition in case number 1:22-cv-00295- 4 | HBK, which challenges the same conviction as in this case, the Court must construe this Petition 5 | as amotion to amend the earlier-filed petition. See id. at 889-90. 6 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 7 1. The Court construes the Petition (Doc. No. 1) as a motion to amend the Petition in 8 case number 1:22-cv-00295-HBK. 9 2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to docket the Petition in this case as a motion to 10 amend in case number 1:22-cv-00295-HBK. 11 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 12 'S | Dated: _ July 20, 2022 law Nh. fareh Base □□□ 14 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(HC)Ramirez v. The People of the State of California, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hcramirez-v-the-people-of-the-state-of-california-caed-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack