Sheppard v. Foster et al
Filing
46
ORDER granting ECF No. 41 Motion to Lift Stay for the Limited Purpose of Filing Supplement to first Amended Petition; Petitioner is granted leave of court to add to her habeas corpus petition in this action the claims set forth in her S upplement to First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ECF No. 42 ; the claims will be considered added to the habeas corpus petition in this action; in all other respects, the stay of this action will remain in effect. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 04/25/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
***
9
MELONIE LYNN SHEPPARD,
10
Case No. 3:14-cv-00059-MMD-VPC
Petitioner,
ORDER
v.
11
SHERYL FOSTER, et al.,
12
Respondents.
13
14
This habeas petition is before the Court pursuant to petitioner Melonie Lynn
15
Sheppard’s counseled motion to temporarily lift stay in order to supplement her petition
16
(ECF No. 41). Respondents opposed (ECF No. 43), and Sheppard replied (ECF No. 45).
17
On March 1, 2016, the Court granted Sheppard’s motion to stay and abey while
18
she litigated her pending state postconviction petition. (ECF No. 39.) She now moves to
19
lift the stay for the limited purpose of supplementing the first-amended petition in order to
20
add factual and legal claims that were not previously available when she filed her first-
21
amended petition. (ECF No. 41 at 3.) While her state postconviction proceedings are
22
ongoing, she seeks to file the supplement now in order to prevent forfeiture of the claim
23
under the statute of limitations. Id. She explains that in an abundance of caution and in
24
the exercise of diligence she brings the newly discovered facts and legal arguments to
25
this Court’s attention now so that they may be properly litigated without delay following
26
the conclusion of all state proceedings. Id. at 3-4.
27
Respondents contend that petitioner has mischaracterized the addition of the claim
28
as a supplement, rather than as an amendment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. For purposes of
1
this motion, the distinction is immaterial. A petition for a writ of habeas corpus “may be
2
amended or supplemented as provided in the rules of procedure applicable to civil
3
actions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2242; see also Rule 12, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases
4
(Rules of Civil Procedure apply to federal habeas proceedings “to the extent that they are
5
not inconsistent.”). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) permits a party to amend a
6
pleading with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. See Fed. R. Civ.
7
P. 15(a)(2). “The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Id. “Courts may
8
decline to grant leave to amend only if there is strong evidence of ‘undue delay, bad faith
9
or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by
10
amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of
11
allowance of the amendment, [or] futility of amendment, etc.’” Sonoma County. Ass’n of
12
Retired Employees v. Sonoma County, 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting
13
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). “[T]he consideration of prejudice to the
14
opposing party carries the greatest weight.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316
15
F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003).
16
Respondents oppose allowing Sheppard to file the supplement, arguing that the
17
factual bases of Sheppard’s new claim—that police coerced her co-defendant to lie and
18
implicate Sheppard—arose before she filed her first-amended petition. (ECF No. 45.)
19
Sheppard acknowledges that her co-defendant had testified in 2009 that she was pulled
20
out of the county jail to work on her story. (ECF No. 45 at 2-3.) However, Sheppard argues
21
that at the January 2017 state postconviction evidentiary hearing, the co-defendant
22
testified for the first time that it was police detectives who coerced her and that a third
23
defendant testified for the first time that detectives pressured him and threatened to have
24
his sister arrested if he did not testify to a similar version of events as the co-defendant.
25
Id.
26
The Court will grant the motion. After the completion of her pending state-court
27
proceedings, and if and when the stay of this action is permanently lifted, the Court will
28
require petitioner to file an amended habeas petition, including the new claim.
2
1
Nothing in this order granting petitioner’s motion for leave to supplement, will have
2
any bearing on any other procedural issue in this case; nor will any aspect of this order
3
have any bearing on the Court’s consideration of the merits of petitioner’s new claim.
4
It is therefore ordered that petitioner’s motion to lift stay (ECF No. 41) is granted.
5
It is further ordered that petitioner is granted leave of court to add to her habeas
6
corpus petition in this action the claims set forth in her Supplement to First Amended
7
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 42). The claims will be considered added to
8
the habeas corpus petition in this action. The Court will not, at this time, require petitioner
9
to file an amended habeas petition, including her new claim. After completion of her state-
10
court proceedings, and if and when the stay of this action is permanently lifted, the Court
11
will require petitioner to file an amended habeas petition including this new claim.
It is further ordered that, in all other respects, the stay of this action will remain in
12
13
effect.
14
DATED THIS 25th day of April 2017.
15
16
17
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?