Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00839/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00839-6/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY JERRY FERRIS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

JEANNE WOODFORD, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-CV-00839 AWI SMS HC 

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION

TO AMEND

[Doc. #15]

ORDER REQUIRING RESPONDENT TO

RESPOND TO ADDITIONAL CLAIMS

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On June 30, 2006, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court. Petitioner

raised the following four grounds for relief: (1) “Weather [sic] the prosecution must prove, at jury

trial that a criminal defendant was san[e] at the time of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt under

the 6 and 14 amendments to the United States Constitution, where the defendant has presented th

substantial evidence that he is legal insane at the time of the offense”; 2) “Does the California

determinate sentencing law, as applied by trial court, and upheld by the court of appeal and the

Supreme Court of California violate the defendants sixth amendment right to a jury trial under the

United States Constitution by allowing the judge, rather than a jury, to find factors used to support

imposition of the upper upper [sic] term of imprisonment”; 3) “Ineffective of appeals council”; and

Case 1:06-cv-00839-LJO -JMD Document 17 Filed 05/01/07 Page 1 of 3
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) “Jury misconduct.” 

On November 7, 2006, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition as a mixed petition

containing exhausted and unexhausted claims. In particular, Respondent alleged that Grounds Three

and Four were unexhausted. The undersigned issued a Findings and Recommendation on

December 8, 2006, which recommended the mixed petition be dismissed. Petitioner responded and

acknowledged that the two claims were unexhausted, and he requested the two claims be withdrawn.

On February 12, 2007, the District Court adopted the Findings and Recommendation and dismissed

the two unexhausted claims. 

On February 23, 2007, the undersigned issued an order directing Respondent to file a

response to the petition, excluding the unexhausted claims which had been dismissed.

On March 21, 2007, Petitioner filed the instant motion to amend the petition and reintroduce

the two claims. Petitioner states the California Supreme Court actually denied his petition on

February 7, 2007, thereby exhausting his claims. In support of his motion, Petitioner has attached a

copy of the ruling from the California Supreme Court which shows his petition for writ of habeas

corpus was denied on February 7, 2007. Therefore, it appears the claims have been exhausted.

Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in relevant part:

(a) Amendments. A party may amend the party's pleading once as a matter 

of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served or, if the 

pleading is one to which no responsive pleading is permitted and the action 

has not been placed upon the trial calendar, the party may so amend it at any 

time within 20 days after it is served. Otherwise a party may amend the 

party's pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse 

party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. 

Petitioner has shown good cause to amend the petition. Accordingly, Grounds Three and

Four of the petition are hereby REINSTATED. Respondent is DIRECTED to include Grounds Three

and Four in the response to the petition. In light of this development, the briefing schedule is reset as

of the date of this order. 

///

///

///

///

Case 1:06-cv-00839-LJO -JMD Document 17 Filed 05/01/07 Page 2 of 3
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

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Petitioner’s motion to amend the petition is GRANTED;

2. Grounds Three and Four of the petition are REINSTATED;

3. Respondent is DIRECTED to include Grounds Three and Four in the response;

4. The parties are advised that the briefing schedule set forth on February 23, 2007, is

reset as of the date of this Order, and the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to reflect the

new deadlines on the docket.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 26, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00839-LJO -JMD Document 17 Filed 05/01/07 Page 3 of 3