1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GERRELL HASLEY, JR., Case No.: 1:25-cv-00717-KES-CDB (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DISCHARGING NOVEMBER 12, 2025, SHOW CAUSE ORDER 13 v. (Doc. 11) 14 CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER, ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO 15 Respondent. RESPOND TO AMENDED PETITION

16 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO TERMINATE PENDING MOTION TO 17 DISMISS AS MOOT

18 (Doc. 10)

19 21-Day Deadline

20 21 Petitioner Gerrell Hasley, Jr. (“Petitioner”), is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 22 forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

. (Doc. 1). 23 On August 11, 2025, because the Court found Petitioner’s petition properly cognizable 24 under § 2254, and the Court has jurisdiction to proceed to the merits of the petition, the Court 25 directed Respondent Christian Pfeiffer to file a response addressing the merits or seeking dismissal 26 of the petition within 60 days of the date of service of the order. (Doc. 5 at 1-2). Petitioner was 27 ordered therein to file a traverse or opposition on or before 30 days from the date Respondent’s 1 applicable to the order. Id.; see E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110. 2 Respondent timely filed a motion to dismiss the petition on October 9, 2025. (Doc. 10). 3 Thus, Petitioner’s opposition or statement of non-opposition was due November 10, 2025. After 4 Petitioner failed to file either an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the pending motion, 5 on November 12, 2025, the Court ordered Petitioner to show cause in writing within 14 days of the 6 date of service of the order why this action should not be dismissed for Petitioner’s failure to comply 7 with the Local Rules and obey a Court order. (Doc. 11). Petitioner was provided the opportunity 8 to comply with the order in the alternative by filing by that same deadline either an opposition or a 9 statement of non-opposition to the pending motion. Id. at 2. 10 On November 18, 2025, in a filing dated November 5, 2025, the Clerk of the Court docketed 11 Petitioner’s amended petition (Doc. 12), removing from the petition the claims that Respondent 12 asserts were unexhausted in the motion to dismiss. See (Doc. 10). As Petitioner’s filing is dated 13 less than 30 days after Respondent’s filing of the motion to dismiss, the Court finds Petitioner’s 14 filing to be timely (see Doc. 4 at 2). 15 In light of Petitioner’s filing of an amended petition in response to the show cause order, 16 the Court finds good cause to discharge its order to show cause without imposition of sanctions. 17 Further, because the amended petition is deemed timely filed and the Court otherwise grants 18 leave to Petitioner to file the amended petition (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1) & (2); Doc. 4 at 2), it 19 is the operative petition with the original being treated as non-existent. Ramirez v. Cnty. of San 20 Bernardino,

(9th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, the amended petition supersedes 21 the original petition and renders Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 10) moot.

As such, the 22 Clerk of the Court will be directed to terminate Respondent’s motion as moot and Respondent’s 23 deadline to respond to the amended complaint will be reset. 24 Conclusion and Order 25 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the November 12, 2025, show cause order 26 (Doc. 11) is DISCHARGED. 27 /// 1 It is FURTHER ORDERED that the lodged amended petition (Doc. 12) is the operative 2 || petition. 3 It is FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent SHALL FILE a response addressing the 4 | merits or seeking dismissal of the amended petition within 21 days of the date of service of this 5 | order. 6 It is FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s TRAVERSE to any Answer or OPPOSTION 7 | to any motion to dismiss filed by Respondent is due on or before 30 days from the date of 8 | Respondent’s filing. 9 The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to terminate Respondent’s pending motion to dismiss 10 | (Doc. 10) as moot. 11 | SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: _ December 2, 2025 | wv Vv ED 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28