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.)

Download PDF
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

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?