(HC)Royal v. Warden
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- On appeal
- Marlin Royal v. Raymond Madden (2025-04-21) — affirmed — the Ninth Circuit's later ruling on this docket
- Panel
- William v. Gallo (author)
Analysis
The court addressed a second habeas corpus petition filed by a pro se prisoner while a first petition was pending in a different case. The court construed the second petition as a motion to amend the first, granted the motion, and ordered the second petition to be refiled as an amended petition in the first case.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to amend the pending habeas petition (construed from the second filed petition) is granted.“So construed, the motion to amend is GRANTED given that it appears the second petition was intended to be the amended petition in the instant case.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the Ninth Circuit precedent in Woods v. Carey, which mandates that a district court construe a subsequent pro se habeas petition challenging the same conviction as a motion to amend the pending petition. The facts recited (pro se status, pending petition, same conviction) align perfectly with the holding in Woods. |
Case is reopened and the second petition is directed to be refiled as the Second Amended Petition in the first case.“The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to refile the petition in case no. 21-CV-1604-BTM(AHG) as the Second Amended Petition in case no. 21-C V-834-WQH(WVG) and to reopen the instant case.” | agree with court This is the procedural consequence of granting the motion to amend under the Woods v. Carey framework. It is the standard administrative remedy to consolidate the claims into the single pending action. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the legal issue (duplicate pro se habeas filings), cites the controlling Ninth Circuit authority (Woods v. Carey) that dictates the specific procedural remedy, and applies that authority to the facts to consolidate the cases. There are no gaps in the reasoning provided for this specific procedural order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARLIN ROYAL, Case No.: 21-CV-834-WQH(WVG)
12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. AMEND AND REOPENING CASE 14 RAYMOND MADDEN, Warden, [Doc. No. 16.] 15 Respondent. 16 17 On August 16, 2019, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition 18 for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the United States District Court 19 for the Eastern District of California. The case was transferred to this Court on April 29, 20 2021 and was assigned case no. 21-CV-834-WQH(WVG). (See Royal v. Madden, 21-CV- 21 834-WQH(WVG) (S.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2021) (Doc. No. 1).) In case no. 21-CV-834- 22 WQH(WVG), Royal challenges his conviction in San Diego Superior Court case no 23 SCE361596. (Id.) The Court informed Royal in an Order dated May 13, 2021, that he had 24 filed a mixed petition and provided Royal with four options to choose from in order to 25 proceed with his case. (See Order dated May 13, 2021 in case no. 21-CV-834-WQH(WVG) 26 (ECF No. 6).) On August 25, 2021, Royal filed a response to the Court’s May 13, 2021 27 Order in which he indicated he wished to file an amended petition which contained all his 28 claims, including his newly exhausted ones. (ECF No. 15.) 1 On September 13, 2021, instead of filing an amended petition in the instant case, 2 ||Royal filed a second habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking to 3 || challenge the same conviction as in case no. 21-CV-834-WQH(WVG). That petition was 4 ||assigned case no., 21-CV-1604-BTM(AHG). (See Royal v. Madden, 21-CV-1604- 5 || BTM(AHG) (S.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2021) (Doc. No. 1).) 6 In Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886 (9th Cir 2008), the Ninth Circuit held that when a 7 || pro se petitioner has a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition pending in a district court and files a new 8 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging the same conviction, “the district court should. . . 9 || construe [a] pro se habeas petition as a motion to amend his pending habeas petition.” Jd. 10 890. 11 Accordingly, the Court construes the petition in case no. 21-CV-1604-BTM(AHG) 12 a motion to amend the petition in the instant case. So construed, the motion to amend is 13 || GRANTED given that it appears the second petition was intended to be the amended 14 || petition in the instant case. 15 The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to refile the petition in case no. 21-CV-1604- 16 || BTM(AHG) as the Second Amended Petition in case no. 21-C V-834-WQH(WVG) and to 17 reopen the instant case. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: September 24, 2021 A Es 20 Hon. William V. Gallo 21 United States Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28