UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION
February 26, 2009
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
ATUL DHURANDHAR, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: J. Spencer Letts Senior United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2255
On March 26, 2008, Defendant Atul Dhurandhar made an initial habeas filing under 28 U.S.C.§ 2255. Defendant made an additional habeas filing under 28 U.S.C.§ 2255 on September 2, 2008, which the Court treated as an amended motion. This Court denied the above-mentioned motions on January 13, 2009. Defendant made yet another habeas filing under 28 U.S.C.§ 2255 on October 30, 2008, which was not processed by the Clerk's Office until January 20, 2009. Generally, a petitioner is not permitted to file multiple habeas motions under 28 U.S.C.§ 2255 unless the petitioner obtains authorization from a panel of the appropriate appellate court. However, when the motion is filed before the adjudication of the initial motion is complete, a federal district court should construe the subsequent motion as an amended motion, not as a "second or successive" motion for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886, 889 (9th Cir. 2008). Notwithstanding the treatment of the October 30, 2008 motion as amended, it is essentially the same as the original motion filed on March 26, 2008, and the amended motion filed on September 2, 2008.
Therefore, having reviewed the papers filed in connection with this matter and being fully apprised of the relevant facts and law,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion of Defendant Atul Dhurandhar to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 2255, be DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.