LaSalle v. Warden

Filing 10

PRISCS- RULING and ORDER denying 9 Motion to Amend/Correct 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 8/14/2013. (Payton, R.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

MARCELINO LaSALLE, JR.
v.
WARDEN

:
:
:
:
:

PRISONER
Case No. 3:13cv617(JBA)

RULING AND ORDER
On May 1, 2013, the court received the petition for writ of
habeas corpus and ordered the respondent to file a response to
all claims.

The petitioner now states that he has completed the

exhaustion process on his claim of ineffective assistance of
counsel and seeks to amend his petition to include that claim as
well.

For the reasons that follow, the motion to amend is

denied.
The petitioner is required to complete the exhaustion
process before filing his federal habeas petition.

See Cullen v.

Pinholster, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 1388, 1399 (2011) (“Section
2254(b) requires that prisoners must ordinarily exhaust state
remedies before filing for federal habeas relief.”).

The

statutes make no provision for amendment to include claims that
were not exhausted when the original petition was filed.

Thus,

the petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim is not
properly included in this action and the motion to amend is
denied.

If the petitioner wishes to have the federal court address
all of his claims, including the claim for ineffective assistance
of counsel, he should withdraw this action and file a new
petition which includes all of his claims.
The motion to amend [Doc. #9] is DENIED.

/s/
Janet Bond Arterton
United States District Judge
Dated at New Haven, Connecticut this 14th day of August 2013.

2