Chijioke Chukwuma Isamade v. Jim Cooper

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CHIJIOKE CHUKWUMA ISAMADE, No. 2:25-cv-3755 AC P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER JIM COOPER, 15 Respondent.

17 Petitioner, a county prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in which he seeks to challenge his conviction in Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 21FE019505. ECF No. 1. The petition and exhibits reveal that petitioner’s convictions in Case No. 21FE019505 were the result of a global plea agreement involving two other cases and resulting in a single judgment for all three cases. Id. at 12, 54-56 (court of appeals opinion), 64-67 (abstract of judgment). The petition further indicates, and court records confirm, that petitioner has another habeas petition pending in this court challenging the convictions arising out of the two other cases involved in the global plea agreement. Id. at 12; see also Isamade v. Allison (Isamade I), No. 2:25-cv-1216 JDP (E.D. Cal.).

27 Because of the bar against second or successive habeas petitions, petitioner must raise all claims relating to a judgment in a single petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) (requiring dismissal of | claims brought in a second or successive petition except in very limited circumstances).

2 || Although petitioner’s plea agreement involved three different criminal cases, the result was a || single judgment encompassing all three cases. See ECF No. | at 64-67. Because the instant || petition challenges the same judgment as the petition in Isamade I, it cannot proceed as a separate || proceeding. “[W]hen a pro se petitioner files a new petition in the district court while an earlier- || filed petition is still pending, the district court must construe the new petition as a motion to || amend the pending petition rather than as an unauthorized second or successive petition.”

8 | Goodrum v. Busby, 824 F.3d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 2016) (emphasis omitted) (citing Woods v. | Carey, 525 F.3d 886, 887-90 (9th Cir. 2008)).

10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall file the petition || in this case as a motion to amend and proposed amended petition in Isamade v. Allison, No. 2:25- || cv-1216 JDP, and close this case.

13 | DATED: January 8, 2026 14 Chttien— Chane ALLISON CLAIRE Id UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE