The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10 JIMMIE STEPHEN, No. 2:20-cv-2315-EFB P
11 Petitioner,
12 v. ORDER
13 G. MATTESON, et al.,
14 Respondents.
15
16 Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
17 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition includes two claims related to the December 5, 2019 proceedings
18 before the Board of Parole Hearings, which denied petitioner parole.1 ECF No. 1. Court records
19 reflect that petitioner is presently challenging the same proceedings in an earlier filed action,
20 which remains pending, Stephen v. Matteson, 2:20-cv-1003-KJM-KJN (E.D. Cal.). It is
21 established that if a new petition is filed when a previous habeas petition is still pending before
22 the district court without a decision having been rendered, then the new petition should be
23 construed as a motion to amend the pending petition. Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886, 888 (9th Cir.
24 2008). Accordingly, the petition filed in the instant action should be construed as a motion to
25 amend the initial petition and filed in 2:20-cv-1003-KJM-KJN. Woods, 525 F.3d at 888.
26
27 1 To the extent the petition also challenges petitioner’s 1991 conviction/sentence in the
Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. A714077, that challenge has been adjudicated.
28 See ECF Nos. 9 & 10.
1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2 1. The October 7, 2020 petition (ECF No. 1) should be construed as a motion to amend
3 || and filed in petitioner’s initial habeas action, 2:20-cv-1003-KJM-KJN; and
4 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file the petition (ECF No. 1) as a motion to amend
5 || in Case No. 2:20-cv-1003-KJM-KJN, and to terminate this action and all outstanding motions.
6 | DATED: December 9, 2020.
7 Dating : heh bie
g EDMUND F. BRENNAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28