Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01753/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01753-2/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Petitioner notified the Court that the claims raised in his petition had recently been exhausted 

via state habeas corpus. (Doc. 10). Thus, the Court ordered Respondent to file a response to those 

four claims. (Doc. 11). On May 4, 2015, Petitioner filed the instant motion for leave to file amend the

petition with seven claims exhausted by Petitioner in his direct state court appeal. (Doc. 14). 

A petitioner may amend a petition for writ of habeas corpus once “as a matter of course,” and 

without leave of Court, before a response has been filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), 

as applied to habeas corpus actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2242 and Rule 11 of the Rules Governing 

Section 2254 Cases. Calderon v. United States District Court (Thomas), 144 F.3d 618, 620 (9th Cir. 

1998); Bonn v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995). Leave of Court is required for all other 

amendments. Rule Civ. P. 15(a). 

Here, Respondent has not filed a response. Thus, leave of Court is not required for any 

amendment to the petition. Accordingly, the Court will grant Petitioner’s motion to amend the 

RAY GUTIERREZ, JR.,

 Petitioner,

v.

R. GROVES,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01753-AWI-JLT

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION 

TO AMEND PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS (Doc. 14)

Case 1:14-cv-01753-AWI-JLT Document 15 Filed 05/20/15 Page 1 of 2
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

petition to include the seven claims exhausted in his petition for review. In the interest of judicial 

economy, the Court will not require Petitioner to file an amended petition, which would require the 

Court to withdraw the present briefing schedule and issue a new briefing schedule; rather, the Court 

will simply deem the seven issues contained in the petition for review to be included in the original 

petition along with the four claims already contained in that petition.1

ORDER

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

1. Petitioner’s motion to amend the petition (Doc. 14), is GRANTED. The petition is 

deemed to include the seven claims presented to the California Supreme Court in Petitioner’s petition 

for review on direct appeal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 20, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1 Given the expansion of the petition to eleven issues, Respondent may seek an extension of time to respond, should that be 

needed.

Case 1:14-cv-01753-AWI-JLT Document 15 Filed 05/20/15 Page 2 of 2