Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_98-cv-02003/USCOURTS-cand-3_98-cv-02003-3/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

In the absence of Dorton’s submission of a proposed FAP, the Court is unable to

determine whether any new claim or claims would be cognizable. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254(b) (providing application for writ of habeas corpus “shall not be granted unless it

appears that . . . the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the

State”).

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON DORTON,

Petitioner,

 v.

KATHLEEN DICKINSON,

Respondent /

No. C-98-2003 MMC

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PETITIONER’S

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

AMENDED PETITION AND FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE

TRAVERSE AND REPLY

MEMORANDUM

Before the Court is petitioner Jason Dorton’s (“Dorton”) “Application for Leave to File

Amended Petition and for Extension of Time to File Traverse and Reply Memorandum”

(“Application”), filed March 26, 2010. Respondent has not filed a response. Having read

and considered the Application, the Court rules as follows:

1. To the extent the Application seeks an order allowing Dorton to file an amended

petition to add a new claim or claims, the Application is hereby DENIED without prejudice

to Dorton’s filing a motion to amend pursuant to Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, and attaching thereto a proposed First Amended Petition (“FAP”). See Mayle v.

Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 655 (holding Rule 15(a) is “applicable to habeas proceedings”); see

Civil L.R. 10-1(providing party seeking leave to file amended pleading must submit

“proposed pleading”).1

Case 3:98-cv-02003-MMC Document 59 Filed 04/05/10 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

If, prior to May 7, 2010, petitioner files a motion to amend, the May 7, 2010 deadline

to file a traverse and reply memorandum will be vacated without further order of the court,

and will be reset, as necessary, following resolution of the motion to amend.

2

2. To the extent the Application seeks an extension of time to file a traverse and

reply memorandum, the Application is hereby GRANTED. Specifically, the deadline for

Dorton to file a traverse and reply memorandum is hereby EXTENDED to May 7, 2010.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 5, 2010 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:98-cv-02003-MMC Document 59 Filed 04/05/10 Page 2 of 2