Diaz v. On Habeas Corpus

Filing 26

ORDER DENYING Petitioner's Construed 25 Motion to Amend as Moot, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 2/3/16. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANGEL A. DIAZ,

12

Petitioner,

13

v.

14

MARTIN BITER,

15

Respondent.

16
17

) Case No.: 1:14-cv-01673-JLT
)
) ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S CONSTRUED
) MOTION TO AMEND AS MOOT (Doc. 25)
)
)
)
)
)
)

The petition in this case was filed on October 27, 2014. (Doc. 1). Subsequently, Respondent

18

filed a motion to dismiss the petition, which the Court granted on May 7, 2015. (Docs. 23; 24).

19

Judgment was entered on that same date. (Id.). However, it now appears that, on April 17, 2015,

20

Petitioner filed another petition, but he failed to include the case number and did not identify the

21

document as an amended petition. (Doc. 23). Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court assigned a new

22

case number, 1:15-cv-00603-AWI-MJS (“15-603”) and a different judge and that case proceeded

23

separately from the instant case.

24

On September 23, 2015, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the new caseissued Findings and

25

Recommendations to construe the petition as an amended petition in this case and to close the case.

26

(Doc. 10, case no. 15-603). On February 2, 2016, that Findings and Recommendations was adopted

27

by the District Judge. (Id., Doc. 12). In accordance with the District Judge’s order, the petition in

28
1

1

case no. 15-603 was re-filed in the instant case as a motion to amend. Accordingly, despite the fact

2

that this case has been closed for nearly nine months, the Court now addresses itself Petitioner’s

3

motion to amend.

4

A. Motions to Amend.

5

A petitioner may amend a petition for writ of habeas corpus once “as a matter of course,” and

6

without leave of Court, before a response has been filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a),

7

as applied to habeas corpus actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2242 and Rule 11 of the Rules Governing

8

Section 2254 Cases. Calderon v. United States District Court (Thomas), 144 F.3d 618, 620 (9th Cir.

9

1998); Bonn v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995). Leave of Court is required for all other

10

amendments. Rule Civ. P. 15(a). Here, Respondent had already filed a responsive pleading in the

11

form of a motion to dismiss at the time Petitioner file his amended petition. Accordingly, leave of

12

Court would be required. Because the case in which the amended petition has been filed has already

13

been closed and judgment has been entered, any amended petition is moot.

14

B. Mootness.

15

The case or controversy requirement of Article III of the Federal Constitution deprives the

16

Court of jurisdiction to hear moot cases. Iron Arrow Honor Soc’y v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67, 70 104

17

S.Ct. 373, 374-75 (1983); N.A.A.C.P., Western Region v. City of Richmond, 743 F.2d 1346, 1352

18

(9th Cir. 1984). A case becomes moot if the “the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties

19

lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481 (1982). The

20

Federal Court is “without power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of the litigants before

21

them.” North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971) per curiam, quoting Aetna Life Ins. Co. v.

22

Hayworth, 300 U.S. 227, 240-241 (1937).

23

Here, as mentioned, the case was closed approximately nine months before this Court received

24

the instant motion to amend. Accordingly, there is no case or controversy and, hence, any amendment

25

would be moot. Therefore, the Court will deny the construed motion to amend.

26

///

27

///

28

///
2

ORDER

1
2
3

For the foregoing reasons, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s construed motion to
amend the petition (Doc. 25), is DENIED as MOOT.

4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 3, 2016

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3