Opinion
23-cv-01303 BLF (PR)
03-05-2024
MICHAEL HILDEBRAND, Petitioner, v. TRISHA CAMPBELL, Respondent.
ORDER STRIKING AMENDED PETITION; DIRECTING PETITIONER TO FILE NEW HABEAS ACTION
BETH LABSON FREEMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Petitioner, a state inmate, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, alleging constitutional violations in connection with his 2006 plea agreement. Dkt. No. 11. On October 3, 2023, the Court dismissed this action after Petitioner failed to show that he exhausted state judicial remedies for any of his claims. Dkt. No. 19. The dismissal was without prejudice to Petitioner refiling once he exhausted state judicial remedies. Id. at 4. Judgment was entered the same day. Dkt. No. 20.
On March 1, 2024, Petitioner filed an amended petition in this action. Dkt. No. 22. It appears that he has since exhausted state judicial remedies. Id. at 22. However, filing an amended petition in this closed action is not the proper means of pursuing newly exhausted claims. Petitioner must file his claims in a new habeas action. Accordingly, the amended petition filed in this action shall be STRICKEN. Petitioner must file the petition as a new action and be subject to the filing fees. In doing so, he must not refer to the case number in this action as the Clerk will assign his petition a new case number.
The Clerk shall STRIKE the “amended petition” filed under Docket No. 22. The Clerk shall enclose a copy of the court form petition and an in forma pauperis application with a copy of this order to Petitioner.
IT IS SO ORDERED.