Turner v. Richardson et al

Filing 77

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 4/19/2018 DENYING 76 Pro Se Motion to Amend. (Henshaw, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANTHONY R. TURNER,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

No. 2:13-cv-00454 WBS AC P

v.

ORDER

WILLIAM MUNIZ, Warden,

15

Respondent.

16
Petitioner is a state prisoner, proceeding with appointed counsel, in this habeas corpus

17
18

action filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This action proceeds on petitioner’s Second Amended

19

Petition. See ECF No. 54. By order filed August 9, 2016, this court directed petitioner to file his

20

traverse within thirty days after the California Supreme Court rules on his petition for review in

21

People v. Turner, California Supreme Court Case No. S232272. See ECF No. 75. That case

22

remains pending in the California Supreme Court.1

23
1

24
25
26
27
28

The California Supreme Court is holding Case No. S232272 pending a final decision in lead
case People v. Martinez, California Supreme Court Case No. S231826. The California Supreme
Court filed a decision in Martinez on March 29, 2018, but a petition for rehearing or modification
remains pending. These matters are set forth on the respective dockets for these cases, available
on the Case Information website operated by the California Courts. See http://appellatecases.
courtinfo.ca.gov/search. This court may take judicial notice of its own records and the records of
other courts. See United States v. Howard, 381 F.3d 873, 876 n.1 (9th Cir. 2004); United States
v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980); see also Fed. R. Evid. 201 (court may take judicial
notice of facts that are capable of accurate determination by sources whose accuracy cannot
reasonably be questioned).
1

1

On April 18, 2018, another judge in this district construed a pro se habeas petition filed by

2

petitioner in another case as a motion to amend the operative petition in this case. See ECF No.

3

76. The undersigned will not entertain a pro se motion to amend in this case, as petitioner is

4

represented by counsel. “A person represented by an attorney cannot file pro se motions.”

5

United States v. Gallardo, 915 F. Supp. 216, 218 n.1 (D. Nev. 1995), aff’d, 92 F.3d 1194 (9th Cir.

6

1996).

7
8

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s pro se motion to amend, ECF
No. 76, is DENIED.

9

SO ORDERED.

10

DATED: April 19, 2018

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2