Mitchell v. Adams

Filing 7

ORDER GRANTING 5 Petitioner's Motion to Amend the Petition signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 8/11/2010. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 U . S . D is t r ic t C o u r t E. D . C a lifo r n ia UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JOHN EDWARD MITCHELL, Petitioner, v. DERRAL ADAMS, Warden, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:10-cv-01342 MJS HC ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER'S MOTION TO AMEND PETITION [Doc. 5] Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On July 26, 2010, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. (Pet., ECF No. 1.) On August 9, 2010, Petitioner filed the instant motion to amend the petition along with a first amended petition. (Mot. & First Am. Pet., ECF Nos. 5-6.) Petitioner seeks to include further supporting documentation and evidence with his petition. Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in relevant part: (1) Amending as a Matter of Course. A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course: (A) 21 days after serving it, or (B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier. -1- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 U . S . D is t r ic t C o u r t E. D . C a lifo r n ia Petitioner may amend as a matter of course up to 21 days after a responsive pleading or motion is filed. Respondent has yet to file a response. Accordingly, Petitioner's motion to file an amended petition is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 92b0h August 11, 2010 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Michael J. Seng -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?