(HC) Martin v. Pogue ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JARED ANDREW MARTIN, Case No. 1:21-cv-01622-DAD-SAB-HC 11 Petitioner, ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION, VACATING FINDINGS 12 v. AND RECOMMENDATION, AND DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 13 TYSON J. POGUE, CORRECT DOCKET AND FILE SECOND AMENDED PETITION 14 Respondent. (ECF Nos. 22, 28, 34) 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 16 DENY RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT 17 (ECF No. 21) 18 19 Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 20 U.S.C. § 2254. 21 I. 22 BACKGROUND 23 On November 5, 2021, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus asserting 24 various conditions of confinement claims and challenging rules violations reports that resulted in 25 the loss of good time credits. (ECF No. 1). At that time, Petitioner was incarcerated at Kern 26 Valley State Prison (“KVSP”) and named the warden of KVSP, Christian Pfeiffer (“Warden 27 Pfeiffer”), as Respondent. (ECF No. 1 at 1).1 On November 17, 2021, the Court granted 1 Petitioner leave to file an amended petition. (ECF No. 5). On November 29, 2021, Petitioner 2 filed a first amended petition (“FAP”) alleging that on April 17 and May 6, 2020, correctional 3 officers beat Petitioner and falsely accused him of attacking them, which resulted in credit loss. 4 Petitioner alleged that he was denied due process and not treated fairly, witnesses to the May 6, 5 2020 incident were not allowed to speak on his behalf, and no one told him about the hearing 6 process. (ECF No. 8). 7 On February 9, 2022, Warden Pfeiffer moved to dismiss the petition because the 8 allegations were too vague and conclusory to state a claim, or alternatively, moved for a more 9 definite statement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e). (ECF No. 21). On February 10 22, 2022, the Court received Petitioner’s second amended petition (“SAP”), and on February 24, 11 2022, Petitioner filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. (ECF Nos. 22, 23). 12 On May 5, 2022, the Court issued findings and recommendation to deny the motion to 13 dismiss and motion for more definite statement. (ECF No. 28). As noted above, after the motion 14 to dismiss was filed, Petitioner lodged the SAP, which “add[ed] more information and facts to 15 the original complaint.” (ECF No. 22 at 6). Additionally, in the opposition to the motion to 16 dismiss, Petitioner also “request[ed] extension of time for amended petition.” (ECF No. 23 at 1). 17 As it was unclear whether Petitioner wished to proceed with the FAP, SAP, or to further amend 18 his petition, the Court ordered Petitioner to notify the Court regarding how he intends to proceed. 19 (ECF No. 28 at 4–5). 20 On May 10, 2022, Petitioner informed the Court that he had been transferred to Madera 21 County Jail and requested that Madera County Sheriff Tyson J. Pogue be substituted as 22 Respondent in this matter. (ECF Nos. 29, 31). On May 12, 2022, Petitioner informed the Court 23 that he intends to proceed with the SAP. (ECF No. 32). On May 13, 2022, the Court ordered that 24 Tyson J. Pogue be substituted as Respondent in this matter. (ECF No. 33). On May 19, 2022, 25 counsel for Warden Pfeiffer filed a motion for clarification. (ECF No. 34). 26 /// 27 /// 1 II. 2 DISCUSSION 3 A. Second Amended Petition 4 “The Civil Rule governing pleading amendments, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, 5 [is] made applicable to habeas proceedings by § 2242, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 81(a)(2), 6 and Habeas Corpus Rule 11[.]” Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 655 (2005). Rule 15(a)(1) provides 7 that within twenty-one days after service of a responsive pleading or a motion to dismiss, a 8 “party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). Rule 9 15(a)(2) allows pleading amendments with “leave of court” at any time during a proceeding. Fed. 10 R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “Rule 15 provides different ways to amend a complaint, and these ways are 11 not mutually exclusive. Rule 15 is organized substantively, not chronologically. It does not 12 prescribe any particular sequence for the exercise of its provisions.” Ramirez v. Cnty. of San 13 Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1007 (9th Cir. 2015). “That is, it does not mandate that the matter of 14 course amendment under 15(a)(1) be exhausted before an amendment may be made under 15 15(a)(2), nor does it state that the ability to amend under 15(a)(1) is exhausted or waived once a 16 15(a)(2) amendment is made.” Id. 17 Based on Ramirez, a petitioner may file a first amended petition with leave of court under 18 Rule 15(a)(2) and “may thereafter utilize his one matter of course amendment under 15(a)(1), so 19 long as he files it timely.” 806 F.3d at 1007. Here, on November 17, 2021, the Court granted 20 Petitioner leave to file a first amended petition pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2). (ECF No. 5). On 21 February 17, 2022,2 eight days after the motion to dismiss was filed on February 9, 2022, 22 Petitioner submitted a timely second amended petition. (ECF No. 22). Accordingly, the SAP was 23 timely filed and satisfies Rule 15(a)(1). 24 As Petitioner has indicated he wishes to proceed with the SAP, the Court will 25 preliminarily review the SAP in due course. See Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in 26 the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 27 2 Pursuant to the mailbox rule, a pro se prisoner’s habeas petition is filed “at the time . . .[it is] delivered . . . to the prison authorities for forwarding to the court clerk.” Hernandez v. Spearman, 764 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th Cir. 2014) 1 B. Motion for Clarification 2 In the motion for clarification, counsel for Warden Pfeiffer states that the docket 3 incorrectly reflects that the Office of the Attorney General represents the Madera County Sheriff. 4 The Office of the Attorney General represents Warden Pfeiffer in this matter and requests that 5 the docket be corrected accordingly. (ECF No. 34 at 1). Counsel also requests clarification 6 regarding the impact of Petitioner’s notification of proceeding with the SAP on the pending 7 findings and recommendation and related deadlines. (ECF No. 34 at 2). 8 It is well-established in our circuit that an “amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.” Forsyth v. Humana, 9 Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir.1997) (internal citation omitted), overruled on other grounds by Lacey, 693 F.3d at 927–28; see also Valadez–Lopez v. Chertoff, 10 656 F.3d 851, 857 (9th Cir.2011). In other words, “the original pleading no longer performs any function....” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.1992). 11 Consequently, the Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint superseded the First Amended Complaint, and the First Amended Complaint ceased to exist. Because 12 the Defendants’ motion to dismiss targeted the Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, which was no longer in effect, we conclude that the motion to dismiss 13 should have been deemed moot before the district court granted it. 14 Ramirez, 806 F.3d at 1008. As Warden Pfeiffer’s motion to dismiss and for more definite 15 statement targeted the FAP, which was no longer in effect, the motion should be deemed moot. 16 Accordingly, the Court will vacate the findings and recommendation issued on May 5, 2022, and 17 will recommend that the motion to dismiss and for more definite statement be denied as moot. 18 III. 19 ORDER & RECOMMENDATION 20 Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that: 21 1. The findings and recommendation issued on May 5, 2022 (ECF No. 28) is VACATED; 22 2. The motion for clarification (ECF No. 34) is TERMINATED; and 23 3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to: 24 a. Correct the docket to reflect that the Office of the Attorney General represents 25 only Warden Pfeiffer in this matter and does not represent Madera County Sheriff 26 Tyson J. Pogue; and 27 b. File the Second Amended Petition (ECF No. 22). 1 Further, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Respondent’s motion to dismiss and 2 | motion for more definite statement (ECF No. 21) be DENIED as MOOT. 3 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District 4 | Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 5 | Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 6 | FOURTEEN (14) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, any party may file 7 | written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be 8 | captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the 9 | objections shall be served and filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The 10 | assigned United States District Court Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling 11 | pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within 12 | the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Wilkerson_v. 13 | Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th 14 | Cir. 1991)). 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 17 | Dated: _May 24, 2022 _ OO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28