they stand, procedurally, at this juncture. We will do our best to unravel the knot. Petitioner’s first petition for habeas corpus has not been completely decided because there are pending guilt-phase issues and no final judgment has been entered. Thus, the petition may, in theory, be amended under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). This circuit and others have noted that “Rule 15(a) applies to habeas corpus actions with the same force that it applies to garden-variety civil cases.” Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Taylor), 134 F.3d 981, 986 n. 6 (9th Cir.1998); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2242 (stating that a habeas petition “may be amended or supplemented as provided in the rules of procedure applicable to civil actions”); Johnson v. United States, 196 F.3d 802, 805 (7th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Before the district court can amend the
holding that a  2255 petition seeking only reinstatement of the right to a direct appeal does not render any later petition a second or successive petition under the aedpa holding that a petitioner may amend a habeas petition rather than filing a second or successive petition when the first petition has not yet reached a final decision holding habeas petition was not second or successive where first petition did not attack conviction but alleged due process violation due to delay in adjudication of direct appeal in state court holding that the habeas petition did not qualify for equitable tolling because the petitioner discovered that his attorney had lied about filing a petition in early 2008 and yet the petitioner did not file one himself until nearly two years later holding that utility customers mailing of a petition did not constitute the filing of the petition as filing was not effectuated until the petition was received by the clerk