Mohamed v. Tampkins
ORDER Granting Petitioner's 38 Motion for Leave to Amend Traverse. Petitioner shall file an Amended Traverse on or before January 20, 2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo on 12/20/2016. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(knb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
EBRAHIM MUSSA MOHAMED,
Case No.: 15-CV-704-BEN-WVG
ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER'S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
CYNTHIA TAMPKINS, Warden,
[ECF No. 38]
On July 27, 2016, Respondent Cynthia Tampkins timely filed an Answer to
Petitioner Ebrahim Mussa Mohamed’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (ECF No. 34.)
Petitioner timely filed his Traverse on September 12, 2016. (ECF No. 36.) On September
23, 2016, Petitioner filed the present Motion to Amend his Traverse. (ECF No. 38.)
In his Motion to Amend, Petitioner requests leave to file an amended traverse for the
purposes of responding to Respondent’s argument regarding a certificate of appeal. (Id. at
1-2.) Petitioner claims he should be able to amend for good cause. (Id. at 3-4.) Petitioner
did not explain in any detail what good cause he had for making the Motion to Amend.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), a party may amend the party’s pleading
once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served. Otherwise, a
party may amend only by leave of the court or by written consent of the adverse party, and
leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). The Supreme Court
has instructed lower courts to heed the language of Rule15(a) to grant leave freely when
justice requires. Valley v. Automated Systems of America, Inc., 2012 WL 113753, at *1
(S.D.Cal. Jan. 13, 2012); citing Howey v. United States, 481 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir.
1973). Because Rule 15(a) mandates that leave to amend should be freely given when
justice so requires, the rule is to be interpreted with “extreme liberality.” Id; citing United
States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981). Further, leave to amend should be
granted more liberally to pro se litigants. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 861 (9th
Cir. 2003); see also Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1131 (“We have noted frequently that the ‘rule
favoring liberality in amendments to pleadings is particularly important for the pro se
litigant. Presumably unskilled in the law, the pro se litigant is far more prone to making
errors in pleading than the person who benefits from the representation of counsel.’”)
(internal citations omitted).
Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed his Motion to Amend only eleven days after filing
his Traverse. Further, Petitioner only seeks to address a small portion of his Traverse; the
legal standard of a certificate of appeal. Although Petitioner provides no reason for not
including the information in his Traverse, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s Motion to
Amend his Traverse. Petitioner shall file an Amended Traverse on or before January 20,
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 20, 2016
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?