James v. Arnold

Filing 10

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 11/10/2014 DENYING petitioner's 9 motion for leave to amend. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LOVIE JAMES, SR.,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

No. 2:14-cv-2433 MCE CKD P

v.

ORDER

E. ARNOLD,

15

Respondent.

16
On November 5, 2014, petitioner filed a motion for leave to amend. Petitioner’s motion

17
18

was not, however, accompanied by a proposed amended petition. As a litigant proceeding in

19

forma pauperis, petitioner’s pleadings are subject to evaluation by this court pursuant to the in

20

forma pauperis statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Since petitioner did not submit a proposed

21

amended petition, the court is unable to evaluate it. Petitioner’s motion for leave to amend must

22

therefore be denied.1

23

/////

24

/////

25
1

26
27
28

Petitioner is informed that he cannot proceed with a claim in this court unless he has exhausted
state court remedies with respect to the claim. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). A petitioner satisfies the
exhaustion requirement by providing the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to
consider claims before presenting them to the federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276
(1971).
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s November 5, 2014 motion for

2

leave to amend (ECF No. 9) is denied.

3

Dated: November 10, 2014

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4
5
6
7
8
9

1
james2433.10b

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2