Gutierrez, Jr. v. Groves

Filing 15

ORDER GRANTING Petitioner's 14 Motion to Amend Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 5/20/2015. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RAY GUTIERREZ, JR.,

12

Petitioner,

13
14
15

v.
R. GROVES,
Respondent.

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01753-AWI-JLT
ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION
TO AMEND PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS (Doc. 14)

Petitioner notified the Court that the claims raised in his petition had recently been exhausted

18

via state habeas corpus. (Doc. 10). Thus, the Court ordered Respondent to file a response to those

19

four claims. (Doc. 11). On May 4, 2015, Petitioner filed the instant motion for leave to file amend the

20

petition with seven claims exhausted by Petitioner in his direct state court appeal. (Doc. 14).

21

A petitioner may amend a petition for writ of habeas corpus once “as a matter of course,” and

22

without leave of Court, before a response has been filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a),

23

as applied to habeas corpus actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2242 and Rule 11 of the Rules Governing

24

Section 2254 Cases. Calderon v. United States District Court (Thomas), 144 F.3d 618, 620 (9th Cir.

25

1998); Bonn v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995). Leave of Court is required for all other

26

amendments. Rule Civ. P. 15(a).

27

Here, Respondent has not filed a response. Thus, leave of Court is not required for any

28

amendment to the petition. Accordingly, the Court will grant Petitioner’s motion to amend the
1

1

petition to include the seven claims exhausted in his petition for review. In the interest of judicial

2

economy, the Court will not require Petitioner to file an amended petition, which would require the

3

Court to withdraw the present briefing schedule and issue a new briefing schedule; rather, the Court

4

will simply deem the seven issues contained in the petition for review to be included in the original

5

petition along with the four claims already contained in that petition.1
ORDER

6
7

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

8

1.

9
10

Petitioner’s motion to amend the petition (Doc. 14), is GRANTED. The petition is

deemed to include the seven claims presented to the California Supreme Court in Petitioner’s petition
for review on direct appeal.

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

Dated:

May 20, 2015

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Given the expansion of the petition to eleven issues, Respondent may seek an extension of time to respond, should that be
needed.

2