Mohamed v. Tampkins

Filing 39

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)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EBRAHIM MUSSA MOHAMED, Case No.: 15-CV-704-BEN-WVG Petitioner, 12 13 14 ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND TRAVERSE v. CYNTHIA TAMPKINS, Warden, 15 Respondent. [ECF No. 38] 16 17 I. INTRODUCTION 18 On July 27, 2016, Respondent Cynthia Tampkins timely filed an Answer to 19 Petitioner Ebrahim Mussa Mohamed’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (ECF No. 34.) 20 Petitioner timely filed his Traverse on September 12, 2016. (ECF No. 36.) On September 21 23, 2016, Petitioner filed the present Motion to Amend his Traverse. (ECF No. 38.) 22 In his Motion to Amend, Petitioner requests leave to file an amended traverse for the 23 purposes of responding to Respondent’s argument regarding a certificate of appeal. (Id. at 24 1-2.) Petitioner claims he should be able to amend for good cause. (Id. at 3-4.) Petitioner 25 did not explain in any detail what good cause he had for making the Motion to Amend. 26 II. LEGAL STANDARD 27 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), a party may amend the party’s pleading 28 once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served. Otherwise, a 1 15-CV-704-BEN-WVG 1 party may amend only by leave of the court or by written consent of the adverse party, and 2 leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). The Supreme Court 3 has instructed lower courts to heed the language of Rule15(a) to grant leave freely when 4 justice requires. Valley v. Automated Systems of America, Inc., 2012 WL 113753, at *1 5 (S.D.Cal. Jan. 13, 2012); citing Howey v. United States, 481 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 6 1973). Because Rule 15(a) mandates that leave to amend should be freely given when 7 justice so requires, the rule is to be interpreted with “extreme liberality.” Id; citing United 8 States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981). Further, leave to amend should be 9 granted more liberally to pro se litigants. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 861 (9th 10 Cir. 2003); see also Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1131 (“We have noted frequently that the ‘rule 11 favoring liberality in amendments to pleadings is particularly important for the pro se 12 litigant. Presumably unskilled in the law, the pro se litigant is far more prone to making 13 errors in pleading than the person who benefits from the representation of counsel.’”) 14 (internal citations omitted). 15 III. RULING 16 Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed his Motion to Amend only eleven days after filing 17 his Traverse. Further, Petitioner only seeks to address a small portion of his Traverse; the 18 legal standard of a certificate of appeal. Although Petitioner provides no reason for not 19 including the information in his Traverse, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s Motion to 20 Amend his Traverse. Petitioner shall file an Amended Traverse on or before January 20, 21 2017. 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 20, 2016 24 25 26 27 28 2 15-CV-704-BEN-WVG

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?