Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05640/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05640-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

RANDALL EVANS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

PAUL M. SCHULTZ, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:04-cv-5640-AWI-TAG HC 

ORDER REGARDING MISCELLANEOUS

MOTIONS FILED BY PETITIONER

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner contends in his petition that the U.S. Parole

Commission has wrongfully used Petitioner’s religious and political beliefs as criteria in denying

him parole, purportedly in violation of the First Amendment. (Doc. 12, p. 5).

On August 18, 2004, pursuant to an order of this Court, Respondent filed his answer in

this case. (Doc. 7). On September 8, 2004, Petitioner filed a reply. (Doc. 8). On August 22,

2005, Petitioner filed Motion to Rule and Notice of Current Warden’s Name, requesting a ruling

on the merits of the petition because the passage of more than one year since the filing of the

reply without a decision by this Court was “unreasonable.” (Doc. 10, p. 2).

On December 15, 2005, Petitioner filed a motion to present new evidence in which he

sought leave of Court to include as Exhibit 20 a Notice of Action dated November 21, 2005. 

(Doc. 11). On January 23, 2006, Petitioner filed a motion for judicial notice, arguing that by

failing to respond to his request of December 15, 2005, Respondent had conceded the issues

raised therein. (Doc. 12). Also on January 23, 2006, Petitioner filed a document entitled

“Judicial Complaint” that contends that this Court’s failure to immediately rule on his previous

Case 1:04-cv-05640-AWI-JMD Document 14 Filed 03/03/06 Page 1 of 5
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

Petitioner also indicates that the current warden of USP Victorville is J.L. Norwood. Pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d)(1), when a public officer is replaced, the new officer is automatically substituted as a

party. Accordingly, that portion of Petitioner’s motion directed to the new warden’s name is unnecessary and will

be disregarded. However, the Court will direct the Clerk of the Court to change the name of the Respondent from

Paul M. Schultz to J.L. Norwood.

2

motions and to decide his case on the merits forthwith violated his “First Amendment” right to

access to the courts. (Doc. 13, p. 1). Petitioner contends that this Court has “stalled” a decision

on the merits of his case as a result of “personal bias” by the Court. (Id. at p. 2). 

DISCUSSION

A. Motion To Rule And Notice of Current Warden’s Name.

Petitioner should be aware that the Court has on its docket many active habeas cases that

are awaiting a decision on the merits. The Court issues a ruling on the merits of each case in the

order in which the case becomes ready, i.e., when a response and/or a traverse has been filed. 

Petitioner’s case is no exception. In addition to ruling on the merits of the cases, the Court must

also screen all new cases, as required by the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act

(“the AEDPA”), to ensure that those cases move forward with properly exhausted claims that

have been filed within the time parameters specified by the AEDPA. Moreover, petitioners file

numerous motions that must be carefully reviewed, researched, and individually addressed by the

Court, a process that is in itself quite time-consuming. 

The Court does not have an expedited calendar for selected habeas petitioners. Petitioner

is advised that the Court acts to resolve all pending cases in the most efficient manner possible.

The Court is aware of Petitioner’s time concern, however the docket of pending cases is

substantial. A decision on the merits of Petitioner’s claims will be issued in due course. 

Accordingly, that portion of Petitioner’s Motion to Rule (Doc. 10), which the Court construes as

a request for an expedited decision, will be denied. 1

B. Motion to Present New Evidence.

Petitioner has requested leave of Court to supplement his petition with “new” evidence,

which consists of a one-page Notice of Action from the U.S. Parole Commission. (Doc. 11, p.

4). In that document, the Parole Commission notified Petitioner that it was advancing his

Case 1:04-cv-05640-AWI-JMD Document 14 Filed 03/03/06 Page 2 of 5
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

“presumptive release date” by twelve months. (Id.). Petitioner contends that this information is

relevant to his petition because it “proves that even Respondents have conceded that Evans is not

a danger to society....” (Doc. 4, p. 1). 

A petition for a writ of habeas corpus may be amended or supplemented as provided in

the rules of procedure applicable to civil actions. 28 U.S.C. § 2242. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) may

be used to permit the petitioner to amend the petition. Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section

2254 Cases, advisory committee’s note; Withrow v. Williams, 507 U.S. 680, 696n.7 (1993). Fed.

R. Civ. P. 15(a) provides in pertinent part:

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....

(Emphasis supplied.)

Factors to be considered when ruling on a motion to amend a habeas corpus petition

include bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of the amendment, and

whether or not the party has previously amended his pleadings. Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815,

845 (9th Cir. 1995). Amendment may be disallowed if the amendment would be futile, such as

where the amended matter is duplicative or patently frivolous, or where the pleading presents no

new facts but only new theories and provides no satisfactory explanation for failure to fully

develop the contentions originally. Ibid. Further, amendment may be prohibited in order to avoid

a court’s having to entertain piecemeal litigation or collateral proceedings advanced with a

purpose to vex, harass, or delay. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1235-1236 (9th Cir. 1984).

Because Respondent has already responded to the petition based on the allegations and

evidence previously submitted by Petitioner; amendment may only occur by leave of court. 

Granting Petitioner’s motion could result in Respondent having to file a supplemental response

directed to the new evidence. Accordingly, the Court will require that Respondent submit its

opposition, if any, to the motion to present new evidence within thirty (30) days of the date of

service of this motion. The Court will then consider the merits of Petitioner’s request for leave

Case 1:04-cv-05640-AWI-JMD Document 14 Filed 03/03/06 Page 3 of 5
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

to present new evidence under the standards discussed in this section.

C. Judicial Notice/Conceded Issues.

Petitioner contends that because Respondent did not oppose his motion to present new

evidence, it necessarily follows that Respondent has conceded that Petitioner no longer poses a

threat to society. (Doc. 12, p. 1). This is incorrect.

Petitioner’s motion merely requests leave to file the Notice of Action as evidence in these

proceedings. The evidentiary value, if any, of the proffered Notice of Action has yet to be

determined and, in any event, is not presently before the Court since Petitioner has not yet been

granted leave to present this “new” evidence. Thus, by not opposing the motion to present new

evidence at the time it was first filed, Respondent cannot be deemed to have conceded the issue

of whether Petitioner is a threat to society. Accordingly, this motion must be denied.

D. Petitioner’s Request for Expedited Rulings.

On January 23, 2006, Petitioner filed a document in which Petitioner reminds the Court

of the various motions he has filed, requests an immediate ruling on them, and reiterates the

equities he contends are at issue in his habeas petition. (Doc. 13). To the extent that Petitioner is

requesting a ruling on pending motions, which the Court has now addressed, the request is moot. 

To the extent that Petitioner is, once again, requesting an expedited ruling on his habeas petition,

the Court once again advises Petitioner that it will take up his petition in the order in which it

became ready for a decision on the merits and a decision on the merits of Petitioner’s claims will

be made in due course. Thus, construing this document as a request for an expedited ruling on

all pending matters, the request is denied.

ORDER

Accordingly, the Court hereby orders as follows:

1. Petitioner’s Motion to Rule (Doc. 10), is DENIED;

2. Respondent has thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order to respond, if

Respondent desires, to Petitioner’s Motion to Present New Evidence (Doc. 11);

3. Petitioner’s Judicial Notice/Conceded Issues (Doc. 12), is DENIED;

4. Petitioner’s Complaint (Doc. 13), which the Court construes as a request for an

Case 1:04-cv-05640-AWI-JMD Document 14 Filed 03/03/06 Page 4 of 5
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

5

expedited ruling, is DENIED; and,

5. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to change the name of Respondent from Paul

Schultz to J.L. Norwood.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2006 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:04-cv-05640-AWI-JMD Document 14 Filed 03/03/06 Page 5 of 5