Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00283/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00283-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MALANJE PHEA,

Petitioner,

v.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE 

OFCALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

No. 2:20-cv-00283 GGH P

ORDER

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254. The matter was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and Local Rule 302(c). 

Motion to Amend Habeas Petition

On February 27, 2020, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s request for 

authorization to file a second or successive habeas petition as unnecessary based on petitioner’s

currently pending habeas petition filed before this court. ECF No. 9. The Ninth Circuit cited 

Goodrum v. Busby, 824 F.3d 1188, 1194-95 (9th Cir. 2016), in support that petitioner’s 

“application for authorization to file a second or successive habeas petition should be construed 

as a motion to amend a pending first habeas petition.” ECF No. 9 at 1. Petitioner’s application, 

Case 2:20-cv-00283-WBS-KJN Document 16 Filed 03/20/20 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

along with petitioner’s supplemental letter and memorandum, were subsequently transferred to 

the undersigned for resolution. Id.

“[W]hen a pro se petitioner files a new [habeas] petition in the district court while an 

earlier-filed petition is still pending, the district court must construe the new petition as a motion 

to amend the pending petition rather than as an unauthorized second or successive petition.” 

Goodrum, 824 F.3d at 1192 (citing Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886, 887–90 (9th Cir. 2008)). In 

Woods, 525 F.3d at 890, the Ninth Circuit “vacated the district court's order dismissing the new 

petition and remanded for the court to exercise its discretion in deciding whether to permit 

amendment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.” Goodrum, 824 F.3d at 1194.

A petition for writ of habeas corpus “may be amended or supplemented as provided in the 

rules of procedure applicable to civil actions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2242; see also Rule 12 of the Rules 

Governing § 2254 Cases (recognizing general applicability in habeas of rules of civil procedure).

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 15(a) provides that:

(1) A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within:

(A) 21 days after serving it, or

(B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is 

required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 

days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), 

whichever is earlier.

(2) In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the 

opposing party's written consent or the court's leave. The court 

should freely give leave when justice so requires.

Here, as required by the Ninth Circuit in this case, the court will construe petitioner’s 

application for authorization to file a second or successive habeas petition as a motion to amend. 

Because it has been more than twenty-one days since petitioner’s habeas petition was filed, and 

no responsive pleading or motion under Rule 12 has been served, petitioner may only amend his 

petition with permission from the court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). 

Rule 15(a) is very liberal and leave to amend “shall be freely given 

when justice so requires.” See Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 757 

(9th Cir.1999). But a district court need not grant leave to amend 

where the amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is 

sought in bad faith; (3) produces an undue delay in litigation; or (4) 

Case 2:20-cv-00283-WBS-KJN Document 16 Filed 03/20/20 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

is futile. Id. at 758; Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385, 1387 

(9th Cir.1990).

AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist W., Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006).

Petitioner submitted his application for leave to file a second or successive petition, a 

memorandum, and supplemental briefing which all seek to include additional claims to 

petitioner’s original petition. See ECF Nos. 8, 10, 11. In his application, petitioner states newly 

discovered evidence supports his newly raised claims. ECF No. 8 at 4. In considering the relevant 

factors pursuant to AmerisourceBergen Corp, the Court finds a lack of prejudice, bad faith, undue 

delay in litigation, or futility. Petitioner sought leave to amend a month after filing his original 

petition. Although, respondents have been served, respondents have not appeared in this action 

and granting petitioner leave to file a first amended petition will not prejudice respondent. 

Accordingly, petitioner’s motion to amend is granted. 

Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. ECF No. 12. There currently exists 

no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 

F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of 

counsel at any stage of the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. 

Governing § 2254 Cases. In the present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice 

would be served by the appointment of counsel at the present time. 

Motion to Change Case Name

Additionally, petitioner requests to substitute the People of the State of California with the 

current warden of Kern Valley State Prison, as respondent. ECF No. 13. “A petitioner for habeas 

corpus relief must name the state officer having custody of him or her as the respondent to the 

petition.” Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Rule 

2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254). However, because petitioner will be granted an opportunity to 

////

////

////

Case 2:20-cv-00283-WBS-KJN Document 16 Filed 03/20/20 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

amend his habeas petition, wherein he may name the appropriate respondent, the undersigned will 

deny petitioner’s request as moot. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The court’s deadlines set forth in its February 24, 2020 order (ECF No. 5) are hereby 

vacated. If necessary, a scheduling order will be re-issued pending screening of petitioner’s 

amended habeas petition;

2. Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 12) is denied without 

prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings;

3. Petitioner’s motion to change case name (ECF No. 13) is denied as moot;

4. Petitioner’s motion to amend (ECF No. 8) is granted;

5. Petitioner is granted thirty days from the date of this order to file an amended 

application for writ of habeas corpus;

1

6. Any amended petitioner must be filed on the form be filed on the form employed by 

this court and must state all claims and prayers for relief on the form. It must bear the case 

number assigned to this action and must bear the title “Amended Petition”; and

7. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send petitioner the court’s form application for 

writ of habeas corpus. 

Dated: March 20, 2020

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1 By setting this deadline the court is making no finding or representation that the petition is not 

subject to dismissal as untimely.

Case 2:20-cv-00283-WBS-KJN Document 16 Filed 03/20/20 Page 4 of 4