Briggs v. Fresno Superior Court et al

Filing 18

ORDER DEEMING Petitioner's New Petition to be a Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Petition; ORDER GRANTING Petitioner Leave to File a Third Amended Petition no Later than Thirty (30) Days after Service of this Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 6/20/2013. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

JOHNNY LEE BRIGGS,

10

Petitioner,

11
v.
12
C. GIBSON,
13

Respondent.

14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:12-cv—01549-SKO-HC
ORDER DEEMING PETITIONER’S NEW
PETITION TO BE A MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE A THIRD AMENDED PETITION
ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER LEAVE
TO FILE A THIRD AMENDED PETITION
NO LATER THAN THIRTY (30) DAYS
AFTER SERVICE OF THIS ORDER

15
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
16
forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant
17
to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1),

18
Petitioner has consented to the jurisdiction of the United States
19
Magistrate Judge to conduct all further proceedings in the case,
20
including the entry of final judgment, by manifesting consent in
21
a signed writing filed by Petitioner on October 1, 2012

(doc.

22
5).

Pending before the Court are two amended petitions.

23
I.

Background

24
The original petition was filed on September 20, 2012.
25
an order filed on October 22, 2012, state law claims were
26
dismissed without leave to amend, and the remainder of the
27
petition was dismissed with leave to file a first amended
28
1

In

1

petition.

2

October 31, 2012.

3

FAP was dismissed with leave to file a second amended petition

4

(SAP).

5

SAP.

6

motion to file a SAP and directed Petitioner to file a SAP within

7

thirty days.

8

petition was filed.

9

Petitioner filed the first amended petition (FAP) on
By order dated February 13, 2013, Petitioner’s

On March 4, 2013, Petitioner filed a motion to file a
On March 15, 2013, the Court dismissed as moot Petitioner’s

On March 25, 2013, Petitioner’s second amended

On April 24, 2013, Petitioner filed another petition for

10

writ of habeas corpus, which was filed in a new case, Briggs v.

11

C. Gibson, case number 1:13-cv-00592-BAM.

12

petition addressed the same detention as the pending petition in

13

this action, the two actions were consolidated by the Court’s

14

order of April 29, 2013, the later action was closed, and the

15

parties were instructed to file all further documents in the

16

present case, case number 1:12-cv-1549-SKO-HC.

Because the new

17

II.

18

Petitioner’s first amended petition addressed Petitioner’s

19

2010 convictions sustained in the Fresno County Superior Court.

20

The first and fourth claims concerning the admission and use of

21

evidence obtained from allegedly unconstitutional searches,

22

seizures, and arrests were dismissed as uncertain because no

23

supporting facts had been alleged.

24

what intrusions were challenged or what evidence was alleged to

25

have been improperly obtained and admitted.

26

Petitioner’s second claim (concerning the prosecution’s failure

27

to disclose evidence of an internal affairs investigation that

28

disclosed tampering with evidence used to convict Petitioner) and

Amendment of the Petition

2

It was, therefore, not clear

With respect to

1

Petitioner’s third claim (alleging that dual convictions of the

2

same offense of possession of a firearm), Petitioner had not

3

alleged specific facts concerning his exhaustion of state court

4

remedies, and it was unclear whether Petitioner’s claims had been

5

presented to the California Supreme Court.

6

dismissed with leave to file a second amended petition.

7
8
9

A.

The petition was

The Second Amended Petition

Petitioner’s second amended petition filed on March 25,
2013, (doc. 15), indicates that Petitioner is an inmate of the

10

Corcoran State Prison (CSP) serving a sentence of thirteen years

11

and eight months imposed in the Fresno County Superior Court for

12

convictions sustained in October 2010 of violating Cal. Pen. Code

13

§§ 12280(b), 12022(c), 69, 12021(a)(1), 1231(b)(1) and 667.5;

14

Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11352(a); and Cal. Veh. Code §

15

2800.2.

16

claims in the petition:

17

violating Cal. Veh. Code § 2800.2, Petitioner alleges that the

18

conviction was obtained by a violation of his right to due

19

process of law protected by the Fourteenth Amendment based on the

20

following supportive facts:

21
22
23
24

(SAP, doc. 15, 1.)

Petitioner raises the following

1) with respect to his conviction of

California Supreme Court denied review of appellate
district’s opinion affirming conviction for count 4, veh
code 2800.2 for due process violation and sua sponte
requirements on April 11, 2012; how previous ruling
from Supreme Court on Dec 11, 2011 regarding
due process intrest (sic) conflict with Federal unanimity
on relief-granted.

25

(Doc. 15, 4.)

26

the California Supreme Court concerning federal due process

27

rights relating to time limits on adjudicating criminal felony

28

charges concurrent with parole revocation charges in which the

Petitioner also refers to previous proceedings in

3

1

court found a due process violation based on delay and found

2

Petitioner not guilty of revocation charges.

3

These allegations are not clear, but it appears that Petitioner

4

is arguing that the proceedings were inconsistent and violated

5

his right to due process of law.

6

(Id. at 6-7.)

Petitioner further alleged the following claims: 2)

7

exculpatory evidence of an internal affairs investigation

8

indicating tampering with evidence used to convict Petitioner; 3)

9

Petitioner’s conviction of possession of a firearm and being an

10

active felon on parole in possession of a firearm, and his

11

convictions of felony evading and misdemeanor reckless driving,

12

were obtained in violation of Petitioner’s protection against

13

double jeopardy; and 4) Petitioner’s conviction was obtained by

14

the use of evidence obtained pursuant to an unconstitutional

15

search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment because

16

Fresno police officers did not have probable cause to search the

17

vehicle and detain based on routine traffic violations, and

18

evidence consisting of firearms, ammunition, and cocaine base

19

seized was introduced.

20

(Id. at 4-9.)

Petitioner requests that his rights be declared, the

21

convictions be reversed, and he receive civil penalties for

22

violations of his constitutional and civil rights by assessment

23

of a tort claim.

24
25

B.

(Id. at 10-11.)

The New Petition

The new petition filed by Petitioner on April 24, 2013, and

26

brought into this action by the Court’s order of consolidation,

27

challenges the same convictions.

28

following claims:

Petitioner alleges the

1) Petitioner’s right to a speedy trial
4

1

guaranteed by due process of law was violated, and he suffered

2

prejudice from the denial of his right to a speedy trial; 2)

3

Petitioner was sentenced twice for the same offense of evading an

4

officer; 3) the warden’s refusal to release him despite federal

5

auditors’ mandating his release from custody on December 22,

6

2012, violated his right to due process protected by the

7

Fourteenth Amendment; and 4) Petitioner’s conviction was obtained

8

by the unconstitutional use of prison priors which are invalid

9

based on various orders and because one prior is a misdemeanor

10

over five years old.

11

5.)

12

reversal of the convictions, and any other appropriate relief.

13

(Id. at 6.)

14
15

(Doc. 1 from docket 1:13-cv-00592-BAM, 2-

Petitioner prays for monetary damages, civil penalties,

C.

Analysis

A petition for a writ of habeas corpus may be amended or

16

supplemented as provided in the rules of procedure applicable to

17

civil actions to the extent that the civil rules are not

18

inconsistent with any statutory provisions or the rules governing

19

section 2254 cases.

20

Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts

21

(Habeas Rules).

22

petitioner to amend the petition.

23

680, 696 n.7 (1993).

24

to amendments before trial that a party may amend its pleading

25

once as a matter of course within twenty-one days after service

26

of the pleading, a required responsive pleading, or a motion

27

under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier; in all other

28

cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing

28 U.S.C. § 2242; Rule 12 of the Rules

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) may be used to permit the
Withrow v. Williams, 507 U.S.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) provides with respect

5

1

party’s written consent or the Court’s leave.

2

should freely give leave when justice so requires.

3

Further, the Court

Where a pro se petitioner files a second § 2254 petition

4

while a previous petition remains pending without a final

5

decision, a district court should not dismiss the second petition

6

as successive but should rather liberally construe the petition

7

as a motion to amend the previously filed petition.

8

Carey , 525 F.3d 886, 889-890 (9th Cir. 2008).

9

court may exercise its discretion to decide whether the motion to

10

amend should be granted.

11

Woods v.

The district

Id. at 890.

Here, Petitioner intended to amend his petition by the

12

material in both the SAP and the new, consolidated petition.

13

Court will therefore construe the new petition as a motion to

14

amend the previous petition.

15

new petition does not include the claims in the previously filed

16

SAP.

17

claims raised in both the SAP and the new, consolidated petition.

18

However, Local Rule 220 provides that unless prior approval to

19

the contrary is obtained from the Court, every pleading as to

20

which an amendment or supplement is permitted shall be retyped or

21

rewritten and filed so that it is complete in itself without

22

reference to the prior or superseded pleading.

23

to be pending before the Court, it must be set forth in the

24

operative petition, which is the petition that is latest filed.

25

In summary, the Court will consider Petitioner’s new

The

The Court notes, however, that the

Petitioner, therefore, may have intended to raise all the

Thus, for a claim

26

petition to be a motion to file an amended petition.

27

will be given an opportunity to file a third amended petition to

28

cure the deficiencies in previous petitions and to set forth all
6

Petitioner

1
2

the claims Petitioner seeks to raise before this Court.
However, the Court notes that this proceeding has been

3

pending since September 2012, and yet Petitioner continues to

4

amend his petition.

5

cannot be amended indefinitely.

6

to file one further amended petition stating all his claims.

7

Petitioner is informed that the petition
Petitioner will be given leave

Petitioner is advised that failure to file a petition in

8

compliance with this order (i.e., a completed petition with

9

cognizable federal claims clearly and simply stated, and with

10

supporting facts and exhaustion of state remedies clearly stated)

11

within the allotted time will result in dismissal of the petition

12

and termination of the action.

13

amended petition should be entitled, “Third Amended Petition,”

14

and it must refer to the case number in this action.

15

Petitioner is informed that Local Rule 220 provides that unless

16

prior approval to the contrary is obtained from the Court, every

17

pleading as to which an amendment or supplement is permitted

18

shall be retyped or rewritten and filed so that it is complete in

19

itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.

20

Further, Petitioner is INFORMED that a federal court may

Petitioner is advised that the

Further,

21

only grant a state prisoner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus

22

if the petitioner can show that "he is in custody in violation of

23

the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States."

24

U.S.C. § 2254(a).

25

for a prisoner to challenge the legality or duration of his

26

confinement.

27

(quoting Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973));

28

Advisory Committee Notes to Habeas Rule 1, 1976 Adoption.

28

A habeas corpus petition is the correct method

Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991)

7

1

In contrast, a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

2

§ 1983 is the proper method for a prisoner to challenge the

3

conditions of that confinement.

4

136, 141-42 (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499; Badea, 931 F.2d at

5

574; Advisory Committee Notes to Habeas Rule 1, 1976 Adoption.

6

McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S.

Petitioner requested monetary damages in his new pleadings.

7

However, unlike an action for damages, a petition for writ of

8

habeas corpus seeks a writ that is prospective in nature, and it

9

does not compensate for past wrongful incarceration; instead,

10

habeas corpus is a challenge to unlawful custody.

11

Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 342 (1997).

12

seeks monetary compensation for past wrongful incarceration,

13

Petitioner must seek it in an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

14

§ 1983, and not in a petition for writ of habeas corpus.

Lindh v.

To the extent that Petitioner

15

III.

16

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

17

1) Petitioner’s new petition, filed in Briggs v. C. Gibson,

18

case number 1:13-cv-00592-BAM, and consolidated with the present

19

action, is DEEMED to be a motion for leave to file a third

20

amended petition for writ of habeas corpus; and

21
22

Disposition

2) Petitioner’s motion for leave to file a third amended
petition for writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED; and

23

3) Petitioner may FILE no later than thirty (30) days after

24

the date of service of this order a third amended petition in

25

accordance with the provisions of this order.

26

///

27

///

28

///
8

1
2

Petitioner is INFORMED that a failure to comply with this
order will result in dismissal of the action.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

Dated:
ie14hj

June 20, 2013

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9