The opinion of the court was delivered by: Carolyn K. Delaney United States Magistrate Judge
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and has filed a "motion to amend" the judgment previously entered by the District Court. For the following reasons, the "motion to amend" should be denied.
Petitioner filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in 2004.*fn1 On May 18, 2007, petitioner filed a new federal habeas petition which was assigned the number 07-0939 LKK KJM P. On September 4, 2007, the court recommended that the habeas petition in this action be denied and the recommendation was adopted on September 24, 2007.
On October 9, 2007, the court recommended that the petition in Civ. No. 07-0939 be dismissed as duplicative. The district court adopted the recommendation on April 7, 2008.
On July 16, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of the habeas petition in this action.
On April 19, 2010, the Ninth Circuit remanded the matter in Civ. No. 07-0939 in light of Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886, 890 (9th Cir. 2008) so that the petition in that action would be treated as a motion to amend in this action.
On May 21, 2010, this court directed that the petition filed in Civ. No. 07-0939 be filed in the instant case as a motion to amend.
On June 23, 2010, the court recommended that the motion to amend be denied and that the case be closed.
On September 2, 2010, the recommendation was adopted and the motion to amend was denied. A certificate of appealability was not issued. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal on the September 2, 2010 judgment. On March 20, 2012 the Ninth Circuit denied petitioner's request for a certificate of appealability on that appeal.
II. PETITIONER'S MOTION TO AMEND
In April 2012, petitioner filed the instant motion before this court. Petitioner states as follows in his grounds for relief:
(a) The United States Eastern District Court violated petitioner's constitutional right to due process of law by using false information to deny motion to amend petition.
(b) The United States Eastern District Court abused its discretion by not allowing petitioner's motion to amend ...