McCray v. Mitchell

Filing 19

Chief Judge Mark L. Wolf: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The respondent's Motion for Order to Schedule (Docket No. 10) is ALLOWED. 2. The petitioner's Motion to Amend Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Docket No. 15) is ALLOWED.(Hohler, Daniel)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
MARK MCCRAY,
Petitioner,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

v.
LISA MITCHELL,
Respondent.

C.A. No. 11-11959-MLW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WOLF, D.J.
I.

September 12, 2012

INTRODUCTION
On November 3, 2011, pro se petitioner Mark McCray filed a

petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254.
The memorandum of law accompanying the petition contained two
claims that were not mentioned in the petition itself.

Petitioner

has filed a Motion to Amend the Petition (Docket No. 15) to include
those two claims.
In addition, on November 30, 2011, the Magistrate Judge
ordered respondent to file an answer to the petition within 21
days.

Respondent filed her Answer on December 3, 2011, along with

a Motion for a Scheduling Order (Docket No. 10).

In the Motion for

a Scheduling Order, respondent requested an extension of time to
January 25, 2012 for filing her Memorandum of Law in Opposition to
the

Petition

unopposed.

for

a

Writ

of

Habeas

Corpus.

The

motion

was

On January 24, 2012, respondent filed her memorandum.

(Docket No. 11).

1

II.

DISCUSSION
A.

Motion to Amend

A court may grant a petitioner leave to amend his complaint
before trial, and "should freely give leave when justice so
requires."

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).

Here, respondent would not

be prejudiced by addition of the two claims, as those claims were
briefed in the petitioner's memorandum of law in support of his
petition.

Furthermore, the petitioner is proceeding pro se.

Accordingly, the court is allowing petitioner to amend his petition
to include the two additional counts, as set forth in his Motion to
Amend.
B.

Motion for Order to Schedule

Respondent's motion seeking an extension of time to file a
memorandum in opposition was not opposed, and the memorandum has
since been filed within the requested period.

Accordingly, this

motion is being allowed.

III. ORDER
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.

The respondent's Motion for Order to Schedule (Docket No.

10) is ALLOWED.
2.

The petitioner's Motion to Amend Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus (Docket No. 15) is ALLOWED.

2

/s/ Mark L. Wolf
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3