Deleon v. Phillips
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:23-cv-02965
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Deleon v. Phillips, Judge Gilliam administratively closed a duplicate habeas case and directed the clerk to treat it as a request to amend the earlier case.
Alejandro A. Deleon, the petitioner, and the clerk of court; the earlier related habeas proceeding was also affected.
What happened
In Deleon v. Phillips, Alejandro A. Deleon filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court determined that it appeared to duplicate an earlier petition that was still pending.
The court explained that when a person without a lawyer files a new petition while an earlier one remains pending, the new filing must be treated as a request to amend the earlier petition rather than as an unauthorized second petition. The court therefore directed the clerk to copy the new petition and the order into the earlier related proceeding.
The court ordered the clerk to administratively close this case and not charge a filing fee because the case was opened in error. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. signed the order.
The detailed version
- Deleon v. Phillips · No. 4:23-cv-02965
- Haywood Gilliam
- July 28, 2023
Background
Alejandro A. Deleon filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court stated that the petition appeared to duplicate an earlier habeas petition in a related proceeding, which was still pending. The court had sent Deleon a letter asking him to confirm his intent in filing the new petition.
Court’s Reasoning
The court relied on the rule that when a petitioner proceeding without a lawyer files a new petition while an earlier petition is pending, the new petition must be treated as a motion to amend the pending petition rather than as an unauthorized second or successive petition.
Disposition
The court ordered Deleon to disregard the earlier letter and directed the clerk to administratively close this case. Because the case was opened in error, the clerk was directed not to charge a filing fee. The clerk was also directed to treat the petition filed in this case as a request for permission to file an amended petition and to file it, along with the order, in the earlier related proceeding.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.