Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06502/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06502-2/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

1

 Pursuant to the Court’s order of April 26, 2005, Petitioner was advised that a traverse to Respondent’s answer was

due thirty days from the date Respondent files its answer. (Court Doc. 13, at 2.)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE L. MORENA, aka CASE NO. CV-F-04-6502 AWI SMS HC

JOSE L. MORALES MIRANDA,

Petitioner, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO RETURN PETITION, LODGED 

vs. OCTOBER 18, 2005, TO PETITIONER

OFFICE OF THE WARDEN, 

CALIPATRIA STATE PRISON, 

Respondent.

 /

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

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on October 15, 2004. Petitioner filed

an amended petition on April 12, 2005. Respondent filed an answer to the petition on July 22, 2005 and

Petitioner did not file a traverse.1

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.

Case 1:04-cv-06502-AWI-SMS Document 21 Filed 10/28/05 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

2

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). While the Court should freely give leave to amend if justice requires,

the Court may deny leave to amend if the amendment would be futile or subject to dismissal. Bonn, 59

F.3d at 845; Saul v. United States, 928 F.2d 829, 843 (9th Cir. 1991).

Petitioner did not seek and was not granted permission to file an amended petition. The Court

cannot ascertain the purpose for the amendment as Petitioner merely submitted an amended petition,

without a formal motion requesting leave to amend and/or supplement. Further, Petitioner does not

indicate, and it is unclear, whether he seeks to file the instant petition as an amended petition or as a

supplement to the original petition. Accordingly, the Court cannot grant Petitioner’s request to amend

or supplement the petition and the petition will be returned to Petitioner. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of Court is directed to return the amended petition for writ of habeas corpus,

lodged on October 18, 2005, to Petitioner.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 27, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06502-AWI-SMS Document 21 Filed 10/28/05 Page 2 of 2