Deleon v. Phillips
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:23-cv-01862
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
Judge Gilliam administratively closed Deleon v. Phillips because Alejandro A. Deleon’s habeas petition appeared to duplicate an earlier pending petition.
Alejandro A. Deleon and the clerk of the court; the new petition will be handled in Deleon’s earlier pending proceeding.
What happened
In Deleon v. Phillips, Alejandro A. Deleon filed a petition asking the federal court to review his custody under a federal law that allows challenges to state convictions or custody. The court noted that the petition appeared to duplicate an earlier petition that was still pending.
Because Deleon was representing himself and the earlier petition remained pending, the court treated this new filing as a request to add material to the earlier petition rather than as a new unauthorized petition. The court also directed the clerk not to charge a filing fee because this case had been opened in error.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ordered the clerk to administratively close the case, treat the new petition as a request for permission to file an amended petition, and transfer both filings to the earlier proceeding.
The detailed version
- Deleon v. Phillips · No. 4:23-cv-01862
- Haywood Gilliam
- July 28, 2023
Background
Alejandro A. Deleon, who was representing himself, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. That law allows a person in state custody to ask a federal court to review the legality of that custody. The court stated that this petition appeared to duplicate an earlier habeas petition filed by Deleon that was still pending. The court had sent Deleon a letter asking him to confirm his intent in filing the new petition.
Court’s action
The court explained that when a self-represented petitioner files a new petition while an earlier petition remains pending, the new filing must be treated as a motion to amend the pending petition rather than as an unauthorized second or successive petition. The court therefore ordered Deleon to disregard the earlier letter and directed the clerk to administratively close this case.
The clerk was also ordered to treat the petition filed in this case as a request for permission to file an amended petition and to file that petition and the order in the earlier related proceeding, No. C 23-01862 HSG (PR). Because the case was opened in error, the clerk was directed not to charge a filing fee.
Disposition and effect
The order administratively closed this case. It did not address the merits of Deleon’s habeas claims. The order instead directed that the new filing be handled in the earlier pending proceeding as a request to amend that petition.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.