Ramirez v. Pratt

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 || Martin Elpidio Ponce RAMIREZ, Case No.: 24-cv-0232-AGS-KSC 4 Petitioner,] ORDER DIRECTING FILING OF 5 PETITION AS A MOTION TO AMEND IN PETITIONER’S 6 || Glen E. PRATT, Warden, EXISTING HABEAS MATTER, 7 Respondent DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO P ‘| PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 8 (ECF 2), AND CLOSING CASE 9 Proceeding without an attorney, petitioner Martin Elpidio Ponce Ramirez has filed 10 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He both paid the filing fee and filed a motion to 11 || proceed in forma pauperis. (See ECF 2; ECF 3.) His petition challenges the same San Diego 12 || Superior Court conviction (under state criminal case number SCN398344) as does another 13 || of his habeas petitions already pending in this Court in Ramirez v. Pratt, No. 23-cv-2175- 14 || JLS-KSC (S.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2024). 15 When a prisoner, proceeding pro se, files a second habeas petition before the 16 |}complete adjudication of an earlier-filed petition that challenges the same conviction, the 17 court should construe the new petition as a motion to amend in the earlier-filed case. See 18 || Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886, 890 (9th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, the clerk is DIRECTED 19 file a copy of the petition in this case (ECF 1) as a motion to amend in S.D. Cal. Civil 20 ||Case No. 23-cv-2175-JLS-KSC and to close this case. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in 21 forma pauperis (ECF 2) is DENIED AS MOOT. 22 Dated: April 3, 2024 23 Andrew G. Schopler United States District Judge 25 26 27 28