King v. Frauenheim

Filing 24

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED PETITION 17 22 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 9/28/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

11

JAMES EDWARD KING
(CDCR # J-74101),

14

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED
PETITION

Petitioner,

12
13

No. C 14-5267 SI (pr)

v.
SCOTT FRAUENHEIM, Warden,
Respondent.

15

/

16
17
18

After this matter was fully briefed, a motion for leave to file a first amended petition was

19

filed on petitioner’s behalf by his mother, Lillian King, purporting to sign as attorney-in-fact for

20

petitioner. A non-attorney may not sign documents on behalf of a petitioner. “Every pleading,

21

written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the

22

attorney’s name–or by a party personally if the party is unrepresented.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a).

23

Due to the liberty interest at stake in a habeas petition, and the procedural rules that generally

24

give a petitioner only one chance at federal habeas relief, it is particularly important that the

25

petitioner sign all his filings. According, the motion for leave to file a first amended petition and

26

for a stay is DENIED. (Docket # 22.) If petitioner wants to file any motion, he needs to sign

27

it himself.

28

1

Respondent’s second motion for an extension of time to file an answer is GRANTED.

2

(Docket # 17.) The answer filed on June 26, 2015 and the traverse filed on July 30, 2015 are

3

deemed to have been timely filed.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 28, 2015
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2