(HC) Haapaniemi v. Fed Bureau of Prisons ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BJORN ERIK HAAPANIEMI, Case No. 1:23-cv-00074-JLT-HBK (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S CONSTRUED MOTIONS TO SUPPLEMENT 13 v. FIRST AMENDED PETITION 14 FED. BUREAU OF PRISONS, UNITED (Doc. Nos. 12, 15) STATES OF AMERICA, 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 Petitioner Bjorn Erik Haapaniemi, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, has pending a 19 First Amended Petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. No. 1). On 20 February 16, 2023, Petitioner filed a pleading entitled “Request Court Consider BOP Normal 21 Operation in re: Protective Custody Transfers.” (Doc. No. 12). On February 17, 2023, the 22 undersigned entered findings and recommendations to dismiss the First Amended Petition for 23 failure to state a claim. (Doc. No. 14). On March 7, 2023, Petitioner filed a pleading entitled 24 “Request to Enter Updated or Partial Relief Effort by FCI Mendota.” (Doc. No. 15). 25 The Supreme Court has instructed the federal courts to liberally construe the “inartful 26 pleading[s]” of pro se litigants. See Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982). Here, in his 27 “request to consider BOP normal operation in re: protective custody transfers,” Petitioner seeks 28 “[t]o bring to the court’s attention another issue regarding disciplinary issues” and asks the Court 1 | toconsider the pleading with his “main filing.” (Doc. No. 12 at 1, 6). In his “request to enter 2 | updated or partial relief” Petitioner similarly wishes to update the Court with new facts that have 3 | occurred since he filed his First Amended Petition. (Doc. No. 15 at 1-2). Thus, the Court 4 | construes the pleadings as Petitioner’s attempt to further amend or supplement his First Amended 5 | Petition for writ of habeas corpus. Any amended or supplemented pleading must be “complete in 6 | itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.” Local Rule 220. Thus, both motions 7 | to file an addendum or an amendment to his First Amended Petition are procedurally improper. 8 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 9 Plaintiff's construed motions to amend or supplement his First Amended Petitioner (Doc. 10 | Nos. 12, 15) are DENIED as procedurally improper. 11 Dated: _ March 21,2023 Wile. □□□ foareh Yack 13 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28