Cunningham v. Warden

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California vacated its prior Findings and Recommendation construing a subsequently filed habeas petition as a motion to amend. The court directed the Clerk to open a new 28 U.S.C. § 2255 case using that petition, transfer it to the Eastern District of Washington, and reset the response deadline to fourteen days from service of the order.

Holdings

1. A second habeas petition filed while another habeas petition is pending is generally construed as a motion to amend the first petition; however, where the petitioner states that the second petition was misfiled, the court may disregard it in the existing case and process it separately.
2. The April 9, 2025 Findings and Recommendation was vacated; the April 9 petition was to be disregarded in the existing case, used to open a new § 2255 case, and transferred to the Eastern District of Washington.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the second habeas petition filed while the first petition was pending should be treated as a motion to amend the first petition.
2. Whether, in light of petitioner's representation that the second petition was misfiled and intended to challenge his conviction in the Eastern District of Washington, the court should vacate its prior recommendation, open a separate § 2255 case, and transfer the petition.

Disposition

vacated