Opinion
20-cv-11476
07-13-2021
TIMOTHY JONES, Petitioner, v. KRIS TASKILA, Respondent.
ORDER OF CLARIFICATION
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Petitioner Timothy Jones is a state prisoner in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections. On May 27, 2020, Jones filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this Court. (See First Pet., ECF No. 1.) A week later, Jones filed a second petition arising out of the same convictions. (See Second Pet., ECF No. 3; together with the first petition, the “amended petition.”) At or around this same time, Jones was also pursuing relief on some of his claims in state court. (See St. Ct. Op., ECF No. 17.)
Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1), Jones was allowed to amend his first petition without leave of the Court. Generally, when a pleading is amended under Rule 15(a), the amended pleading supersedes the original pleading. See Clark v. Johnston, 413 Fed.Appx. 804, 811 (6th Cir. 2011) (“‘[T]he original pleading no longer performs any function in the case and any subsequent motion made by an opposing party should be directed at the amended pleading.'”) (quoting 6 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1476 (3d ed. 2010)) (footnote omitted in original). The original pleading may be incorporated in the amended pleading if the party submitting the amendment intended the latter pleading to supplement, rather than supersede, the original pleading. See id. Here, Jones did not indicate that he intended the second petition to supersede the first. Because Jones was proceeding pro se, the Court liberally construed his second petition as a supplement to the first. For ease of reference, the Court will refer to the petitions jointly as the “amended petition.”
On January 14, 2021, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the amended petition because Jones had raised several claims that he had not fully exhausted. (See Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 10.) The Court granted that motion and dismissed the amended petition without prejudice in a written order dated June 9, 2021. (See Order, ECF No. 18.)
On June 28, 2021, the Court received a letter from Jones in which he asked about the status of his case. (See Ltr., ECF No. 20.) Pursuant to the Court's June 9, 2021, order, Jones' federal habeas action has been dismissed without prejudice and is no longer pending in this Court. In order to present his claims to this Court, Jones will have to properly re-file a habeas petition and do so within the applicable limitations period.
IT IS SO ORDERED.