Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00362/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00362-2/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

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kurt B. Williams, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV06-362-PHX-ROS

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion to Amend Habeas Corpus Petition. (Doc.

52). For the reasons stated herein, this motion will be denied.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On January 27, 2006, Petitioner Kurt B. Williams filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus. (Doc. 1). On May 21, 2007, Magistrate Judge Edward C. Voss issued a Report and

Recommendation, (Doc. 35), recommending that this petition be denied and dismissed with

prejudice. On June 4, 2007, the same day that Petitioner filed his Objections to Magistrate’s

Report and Recommendation, (Doc. 38), he also filed the Motion to Amend Habeas Corpus

Petition and lodged a proposed First Amended Petition, (Docs. 37, 52). 

On July 24, 2007, the Court adopted the Report and Recommendation and denied the

habeas petition. (Doc. 40). Petitioner appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (Doc.

45). On December 24, 2007, the Ninth Circuit stayed the appeal and remanded the case back

to the Court for the purpose of ruling on Petitioner’s motion to amend the petition. (Doc. 51).

Case 2:06-cv-00362-ROS Document 57 Filed 03/28/08 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 - 2 -

The Court referred the matter back to Magistrate Judge Voss to address the motion to

amend, who issued a Report and Recommendation recommending denial of the motion.

(Doc. 55). Petitioner filed objections on March 7, 2008. (Doc. 56).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Because objections

were made, the Court reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations de novo.

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.

2003). 

ANALYSIS

Petitioner seeks to amend his petition to include a claim for vindictive prosecution. After

a responsive pleading is served, a party may only amend its petition for habeas corpus by

written consent of the adverse party or by leave of court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). To

determine whether to permit an amendment, courts consider: “(1) bad faith; (2) undue delay;

(3) prejudice to the opposing party; (4) futility of amendment; and (5) whether the plaintiff

has previously amended his complaint.” Nunes v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 805, 808 (9th Cir.

2004). 

The Magistrate Judge denied Petitioner’s motion to amend on the grounds of undue delay

and futility of amendment. The Court agrees that the amendment is futile, and, thus, will

adopt the Report & Recommendation in part. 

Futility of amendment alone can justify the denial of a motion for leave to amend. Bonin

v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir.1995). The test for futility is identical to the one used

when considering the sufficiency of a pleading challenged under Rule 12(b)(6). Miller v.

Rykoff-Sexton, Inc., 845 F.2d 209, 214 (9th Cir. 1988). 

The Magistrate Judge correctly found that: “In the proposed amended petition, Petitioner

does not even argue that the Arizona Court of Appeals erred, let alone allege that the decision

was (1) contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as

Case 2:06-cv-00362-ROS Document 57 Filed 03/28/08 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 - 3 -

determined by the United States Supreme Court; or (2) based on an unreasonable

determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”

Without these allegations, Petitioner cannot maintain an action for a writ of habeas corpus.

See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). His motion to amend, therefore, is futile.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 55) is ADOPTED IN PART and REJECTED

IN PART.

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Ruling (Doc. 53) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Amend (Doc. 52) is DENIED.

DATED this 28th day of March, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-00362-ROS Document 57 Filed 03/28/08 Page 3 of 3