Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01241/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01241-3/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD MORENO, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

K. MENDOZA-POWERS, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-CV-01241 LJO SMS HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT TRAVERSE 

[Doc. #11]

ORDER STRIKING ADDITIONAL

AUTHORITIES

[Doc. #12]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

On August 23, 2006, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus in the

United States District Court for the Central District of California. By order of the Court dated

August 30, 2006, the matter was transferred to the Eastern District and received in this Court.

Respondent filed an answer to the petition on January 8, 2007, and Petitioner filed his traverse on

March 15, 2007. Briefing concluded at that time, and the petition has been pending review by the

Court. 

On August 20, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion to supplement his traverse. Petitioner provides

no reason why he seeks to supplement his traverse now, some five months later, other than to

Case 1:06-cv-01241-LJO -SMS Document 13 Filed 08/29/07 Page 1 of 2
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

“present[] a more clear rebuttal to Respondent’s arguments.” Petitioner’s Motion at 10. Petitioner’s

request is untimely as briefing concluded in this matter five months ago. Moreover, there is nothing

in the proposed supplement that could not have been raised and argued in the traverse.

Also on August 20, 2007, Petitioner filed a pleading entitled “Petitioner’s Notice of

Additional Authorities in Support of Petition.” Petitioner seeks to apprise the Court of additional

case law that purport to have a bearing on the issues presented. As with his motion to supplement,

this document must be disregarded because briefing has concluded in this matter. The Court is well

aware of the developing case law and will conduct its own research with respect to Petitioner’s

claims. In addition, Petitioner did not seek leave of court to file this notice. Furthermore, none of the

cases cited by Petitioner indicates a shift in the law which could invite further briefing. The cases

cited are from other district courts and state appellate courts. As such, they are at best persuasive

authority.

ORDER

Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion to Supplement the Traverse is DENIED, and Petitioner’s

Notice of Additional Authorities is STRICKEN.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 28, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01241-LJO -SMS Document 13 Filed 08/29/07 Page 2 of 2